Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 416 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 June, 2025
1 W.A.(MD)NO.1333 OF 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD)No.1333 of 2025 AND
C.M.P.(MD)No.8128 of 2025
V.Malaichamy ... Appellant/ 4th Respondent
Vs.
1. All India Islamic Foundation,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Buhari Towers, Ground Floor,
4, Moores Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent No.1/Writ petitioner
2. The District Collector,
O/o.the District Collector,
Madurai.
3. The District Revenue Officer,
O/o.the District Revenue Officer,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
4. The Tahsildar,
Madurai North Taluk,
Madurai District. ... Respondents 1 to 3 / Respondents 1 to 3
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 03:19:24 pm )
2 W.A.(MD)NO.1333 OF 2025
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to
allow the writ appeal and set aside the order in W.P.(MD)No.1673 of
2025 dated 12.03.2025 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Ezhilarasu
For R-1 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior counsel,
for M/s.Ajmal Associates.
For R-2 to R-4 : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar,
Additional Government Pleader.
***
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated
12.03.2025 made in W.P.(MD)No.1673 of 2025. The said writ petition
was filed by the first respondent herein challenging the proceedings
dated 27.11.2024 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai in
favour of the appellant herein.
3. The learned single Judge had taken note of the fact that there
are too many contentious aspects involving the question of title and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 03:19:24 pm )
therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94 (Vishwas Footwear
Company Ltd., Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram), the
revenue authority cannot go into the same.
4. We are of the view that the approach adopted by the learned
single Judge cannot be faulted. It is also to be seen that the writ
petitioner / first respondent herein had purchased the disputed
property way back in the year 1996 and that the sale deed was
registered in the year 1997. Patta was also mutated in favour of the
writ petitioner nearly thirty years ago. It is for this reason, the
learned single Judge called upon the appellant herein to move the
jurisdictional civil Court to establish his rights. The order impugned
in the writ appeal cannot be faulted. This writ appeal stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (K.RAJASEKAR, J.) 3rd June 2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 03:19:24 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.
PMU
To:
1. The District Collector, O/o.the District Collector, Madurai.
2. The District Revenue Officer, O/o.the District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.
3. The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.
03.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 03:19:24 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 03:19:24 pm )
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!