Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.D.RAMALINGAM versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.D.Ramalingam v. District Collector - W.A. No.1717 of 2002 [2007] RD-TN 3 (2 January 2007)


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



Dated: 02.01.2007

Coram:

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM

and

The Honourable Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

Writ Appeal No.1717 of 2002

and

WAMP No.2970 of 2002

1. C.D.Ramalingam

2. C.D.Gopal

3. C.D.Chockalingam

4. C.D.Jayagopal

5. A.Chandraprabha

6. Vidya Saram

7. A.Sathyanarayanan ..Appellants/Petitioners Vs.

1. The District Collector,

Kanchipuram.

2. The District Revenue Officer,

Kanchipuram.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Maduranthakam,

Kanchipuram District.

4. The Tahsildar,

Maduranthakam.

5. V.N.Raghupathi ..Respondents/Respondents Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.04.2002 made in W.P.No.11300 of 2002. For Appellant : Ms.Emily Venkatesan for Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, SC For respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.K.Elango, Spl. Govt. Pleader For 5th respondent : Mr.A.Venkatesan JUDGMENT



(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The above writ appeal is directed against the order dated 04.04.2002 made in W.P.No.11300 of 2002, in and by which, the learned single Judge, after observing that the matter is to be agitated only before the Civil Court, has disposed the writ petition by affording such opportunity.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the respondents.

3. The only grievance of the appellants is that though notice had been sent asking them to appear on 10.12.2001 at 4.00 p.m., before the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram (the second respondent herein), according to them, the said notice was received only on 22.12.2001. It is also brought to our notice that the endorsement on the envelope shows that notice itself posted only on 20.12.2001 by ordinary post at Kanchipuram. By contending so, it is the grievance of the appellants/writ petitioners that they were not heard by the District Revenue Officer before passing the order on 11.12.2001.

4. In view of the above contention, we have verified the materials placed before us. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, particularly in para 5, there is specific assertion viz., that the intimation was received by the appellants/petitioners only on 22.12.2001, however the notice shows that they have to appear before the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram, on 10.12.2001 at 4.00 p.m. The said aspect viz., failure to afford reasonable opportunity, was though projected before the learned single Judge, the same has not been adverted to and instead the learned single Judge, taking note of the dispute between the appellants-petitioners and the contesting fifth respondent, has dismissed the writ petition with liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to vindicate their grievance.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent by drawing our attention to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1995 The Madras Law Journal Reports 426 (KUPPUSWAMI NAINAR VS. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, THIRUVANNAMALAI AND OTHERS), has submitted that in view of the dispute between the appellants/petitioners and the fifth respondent, ultimately it is for the Civil Court to decide and the Revenue Authorities cannot arrive at any conclusion over the issue in question. We are not disputing the above preposition. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners when hearing was fixed for 10.12.2001 at 4.00 p.m., it is but proper on the part of the authority to issue notice to all the parties in advance. In the case on hand, we have already referred to the assertion of the appellants/petitioners that the said notice mentioning the hearing date as 10.12.2001 was received by their counsel only on 22.12.2001. In view of such assertion and in the absence of any other contra material, we are of the view that the appellants/petitioners are entitled to an opportunity of being heard before the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram. Ultimately, if any decision is arrived, the aggrieved party/parties are free to approach the Civil Court as observed by the learned single Judge as well as the decision of the Division Bench referred to above. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 04.04.2002 made in W.P.No.11300 of 2002 as well as the order of the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram dated 11.12.2001 and remit the matter to the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram, for fresh disposal after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned.

6. The writ appeal is allowed to the above limited extent. No costs. Consequently, WAMP No.2970 of 2002 is closed.

raa

To

1. The District Collector,

Kanchipuram.

2. The District Revenue Officer,

Kanchipuram.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Maduranthakam,

Kanchipuram District.

4. The Tahsildar,

Maduranthakam.

[PRV/9116]


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.