Madras High Court
Shri Balaji Pandithar Sathiram vs Tamil Nadu Government on 5 March, 2024
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
C.R.P(MD).No.177 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.03.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)No.177 of 2023
in
C.M.P(MD)No.840 of 2023
1.Shri Balaji Pandithar Sathiram,
Adhirampattinam represented by its
Hereditary Trustee
Vivek Harinaryanan,
2.Lalitha,
3.Viji ... Petitioners / Petitioners / Appellants
Vs
1.Tamil nadu Government,
represented by its Director Collector,
Thanjavur,
Having Office at
Thanjavur Town and District.
2.The Forest Officer,
Nagapattinam,
Having his office at
Nagapattinam Town and District.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).No.177 of 2023
3.The Forest Range Officer,
Muthupettai,
Having his office at
Muthupettai Town,
Thiruvarur District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order made in I.A.No.29 of 2022 in
A.S.No.40 of 2004 dated 05.01.2023 on the file of the Subordinate
Judge, Pattukottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram
Senior Counsel
for Mr.D.R.Murugesan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Sivanu Pandian
Government Advocate (Civil)
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order made in
I.A.No.29 of 2022 in A.S.No.40 of 2004 dated 05.01.2023 on the file of
the Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai.
2. The facts in brief are that the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2001 was filed
by the plaintiff, against the Government of Tamilnadu, seeking the relief
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of declaration that the suit property belongs to them absolutely and for
permanent injunction. That suit was dismissed. Against which A.S.No.
40 of 2004 was preferred before the Subordinate Court, Pattukottai and
that was also allowed, granting declaration and consequential injunction,
on 27.04.2005. After that Second Appeal was preferred by the State
Government in S.A.(MD)No.979 of 2007. The same was disposed of
with the following observation and direction:
"16. For all these reasons, this Court is of the view
that the judgment of the First Appellate Court in
decreeing the suit is liable to be interfered with.
Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the First
Appellate Court in A.S.No.40 of 2004, dated 27.04.2005
is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the First
Appellate Court to try the appeal afresh by taking note of
the fact that the respondents herein had not laid any
claim over the area declared as forest in the Tamil Nadu
Gazetted Notification, dated 23.02.1990. Find out
whether the proceedings under the Act 26 of 48 is
binding on the plaintiff shall also can be gone into by the
First Appellate Court for deciding the issue. The First
Appellate Court also may give an opportunity to both
sides to establish their rights. However, it is made clear
that over the area declared as forest in the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Gazetted Notification, dated 23.02.1990, the plaintiff
cannot have any right and in fact the civil Court cannot
go into this aspect, when the lands were declared as
reserved forest as per Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Forest
Act, 1882. The First Appellate Court shall dispose of the
suit as expeditiously as possible not later than one year
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since
the matter is remanded back, the substantial questions of
law framed by this Court are left open. The Registry is
directed to send back all the papers to the First Appellate
Court forthwith."
3. Now the matter is back to the First Appellate Court namely the
Subordinate Court, Pattukottai. During the proceedings, I.A.No.29 of
2022, was taken out by the revision petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 to
amend the plaint with the averments that in the schedule of the plaint, the
suit survey number is mentioned as 529 measuring about 212.32 acres.
Later, that was sub divided into various subdivisions. Now the subject
matter of the property is comprised in S.No.557. Various lands belong to
various departments, are now comprised in S.No.529 measuring about 52
Acres. That was informed to the second Appellate Court. In view of the
same, the plaint is required to be amended. That was resisted by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents by filing a written statement on 22.02.2002, that the property
comprised in S.No.529 measuring about 861.88 acres was taken over by
the Government by the Act 26/1948. After lapse of 20 years, now the
petition is filed. No document is produced to support the amendment.
That came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court by pointing out the
remand order passed by the Second Appellate Court. Against which, this
Civil Revision Petition is preferred.
4. Even before the Second Appellate Court, as mentioned above, it
was submitted by the revision petitioner that they are not making any
claim over the property which belongs to various department. Now they
want to amend the plaint accordingly. In the opinion of this Court, the
amendment will not alter the nature or character of the suit. Since the
revision petitioner wants to make clarification over the claim in respect
of the property taken over by the various department, now they want the
plaint to be amended. To support the claim of amendment 'A' Register
copy is also produced. I find that the property comprised in Survey No.
529 is declared as Reserve Forest. S.No.557 is recorded as Uppalam.
Since the claim of the revision petitioner is supported by documents, now
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
produced before this Court, the order of the Appellate Court is liable to
be set aside.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and the
order in I.A.No.29 of 2022 in A.S.No.40 of 2004 dated 05.01.2023
passed by the Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, is set aside, by permitting
the petitioner to amend the plaint as prayed for in the petition. The
learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, may decide the matter in the light
of the remand order passed in S.A.(MD)No.979 of 2007 dated
31.03.2021. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
stands closed.
05.03.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/ No
pnn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn
ORDER
IN
in
05.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
