Madras High Court
Jegathambal vs The District Revenue Officer on 12 February, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.24100 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:12.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.(MD) No.24100 of 2017
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.20228 of 2017 and 16692 of 2018
G.Murugesan (Died)
1.Jegathambal
2.Ganapathi
3.Ravishankar
4.Poornima ... Petitioners
[P1 to P4 are substituted vide order dated
16.12.2024 in WMP(MD)No.20672 of 2024]
vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Tahsildar,
Ramanathapuram Taluk,
Ramanathapuram.
4.Boomithasan ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24100 of 2017
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the enquiry notice
in Na.Ka.No.B6/43491/2017, dated 26.09.2017 issued by the first respondent and
quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Barathan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3
No Appearance for R4
ORDER
The petitioners challenge the enquiry notice dated 26.09.2017 requiring the
petitioners to attend an enquiry on 06.10.2017 in respect of the complaint lodged
by the fourth respondent on the ground that the subject lands have been classified
as 'Mayanam' and the patta issued in favour of the petitioners has to be cancelled.
2.Heard Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
official respondents 1 to 4. There is no representation on behalf of the fourth
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.No doubt, the petitioners challenge only an enquiry notice as contended
by the learned Additional Government Pleader.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the
petitioners can very well attend the enquiry and submit all relevant documents to
enable the enquiry to be concluded, which may also end in favour of the
petitioners.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
pursuant to a decree of a competent Court and an appeal preferred therefrom,
which also came to be dismissed, the deceased petitioner's right in the subject
property has been clearly established before the competent Court of law. He
would further submit that as against certain third parties, the original petitioner
has also filed yet another suit for declaration of title and for recovery of
possession and even in the said suit, the petitioner has succeeded and has also
satisfied the decree by recovering possession of the property from the
encroachers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.On going through the complaint, based on which the present enquiry is
proposed to be conducted, I find that the complainant, namely, the fourth
respondent has no right in the subject lands. He has sent a letter to the District
Revenue Officer on 28.08.2017 stating that the subject lands are classified as
'Mayanabhoomi' and therefore the patta in favour of the original petitioner and his
predecessors in title, namely, the trust, should be revoked. The very same issue
has been gone into by the competent civil Court, where the original petitioner
herein was cited as the second defendant. I find that the said suit was filed under
Order 1 Rule VIII of CPC, in a representative capacity for the very same relief
that the subject lands are classified as burial ground. The said suit, after contest,
came to be dismissed and the appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed,
confirming the judgment and decree against the plaintiff in the said suit and in
favour of the second respondent herein and therefore, there is absolutely no
necessity for any further enquiry to be conducted, that too based on the complaint
of a total stranger to the subject property. Further, I find that the writ petition was
admitted wayback in the year 2017 and an interim stay has also been granted.
Therefore, relegating the petitioners to suffer another round of proceedings by
way of enquiry before the revenue authorities after having succeeded before the
competent civil Court would be unfair, besides an exercise in futility.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.In view of the above, enquiry notice in Na.Ka.No.B6/43491/2017, dated
26.09.2017 is quashed and this petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.02.2025
sji
NCC: Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Tahsildar,
Ramanathapuram Taluk,
Ramanathapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.B.BALAJI, J.
sji
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
