Azhaganandham v. Assistant Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 25.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI Azhaganandham (Cause title accepted vide Court order dated 18.02.2026 made in CMP.No.4359 of 2026 in CRP.SR.No.2427 of 2026) ... Petitioner Vs.

Assistant Collector, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

... Respondent Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to direct the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai to dispose of R.E.P.No.78 of 1994 insofar as the petitioner claim is concerned within a time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Krishna Kumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Anandan, Government Advocate 1/5

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. The materials available on record were also perused.

2. The petitioner seeks a direction to the Executing Court to dispose of REP No.78 of 1994, in so far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court through the cause title in REP No.78 of 1994 pending before the Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai, would submit that the petitioner is the legal heir of the fifth claimant, namely Chinnathai Ammal, who is no more. He would further submit that separate and individual claims have been made by the respective claimants in the said execution petition and that the claim of the petitioner's deceased mother, the fifth claimant, is for a sum of Rs.1,88,693/-.

2/5

4.The learned counsel would further submit that, owing to disputes among the legal representatives of other claimants, whose claims are distinct and separate, the entire execution petition has been kept pending since the year 1994. In the meantime, the petitioner's mother has also passed away without being able to enjoy the fruits of the enhanced compensation awarded.

5. This Court finds that the request made by the petitioner is bona fide and reasonable, particularly when the execution petition has been pending since 1994. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418, has issued specific directions to all Executing Courts to dispose of pending execution petitions, as far as possible, within a period of six months. 6.In the light of the above and considering the fact that the claim of the fifth claimant is independent and distinct, this Court does not find any prejudice being caused to the other claimants. Therefore, there would be no impediment for the Executing Court to independently consider the claim relating to the fifth claimant and dispose of REP No.78 of 1994, in so far as the said claim is concerned, on merits and in accordance with 3/5

law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

25.02.2026 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order kv To

1. The Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The Assistant Collector, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

4/5

P.B.BALAJI, J.

kv 25.02.2026 5/5