Madras High Court
G.Dhanasekaran vs / on 26 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.24448 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.24448 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)No.20779 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)No.3007 of 2025
G.Dhanasekaran .... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.Mr.Rajamonoharan
5.The Tahsildhar,
6.S.Boomidhasan
(R6 is impleaded vide Court
Order dated 22.01.2025) ... Respondents
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:50 am )
W.P.(MD)No.24448 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
proceedings passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A6/8571/2024
dated 03.10.2024 quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, malafied and
violation of principles of natural justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan
For R1 to R3 : Mrs.K.Malathi
& R5 Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : No appearance
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the
impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer holding that
the subject lands are classified as 'burial grounds'.
2. I have heard Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mrs.K.Malathi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents 1 to 3 & 5.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:50 am )
to my order dated 12.02.2025 in W.P(MD)No.24100 of 2017 where the
vendors of the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the said
writ petition challenging an enquiry notice issued to them. Considering
the fact that there was a decree passed by the competent Civil Court in
which the State was a party and the same had attained finality, it is not
open to the revenue authorities to initiate fresh round of proceedings, I
quashed the enquiry notice. The copy of the order dated 12.02.2025 is
also brought to my attention. In the present case, the petitioner is none
other than the purchaser from the petitioners 2 to 4 in W.P(MD)No.24100
of 2017. Even in the present proceedings, the petitioner has brought to
the notice of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the Civil Suit has ended
in favour of the petitioner's vendor and the judgment and decree has also
become final. However, despite referring to the same, the Revenue
Divisional Officer has not taken note on effect of the said decree of the
Civil Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer has proceeded to pass the
impugned order. The same is clearly unsustainable in law and when the
decree is binding on the respondents, it is not open to them to reopen the
proceedings and classify the lands as Mayaanam lands.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:50 am )
4. For the above reasons and also in view the earlier order passed
by me in W.P(MD)No.24100 of 2017, dated 12.02.2025 the petitioner is
entitled to relying. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order
of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A6/8571/2024 dated 03.10.2024 is
set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No 26.02.2025
am
To
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:50 am )
P.B. BALAJI, J.
am
Order made in
Dated:
26.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:50 am )
