Nemmeli Arulmigu Alavandar v. District Revenue Officer,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25-04-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM And MP Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 Nemmeli Arulmigu Alavandar Nayagar Charities Represented by its Executive Officer, Mamallapuram, Thirukalukundram Taluk, ... Petitioner Vs.
1.District Revenue Officer, Office of the Collectorate, 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu Town and Taluk, 3.The Tahsildar, Tirupporur Taluk, 4.Vishwanatha Gramani 5.K.Lakshmi
6.K.Ananadan 7.S.Rukmani 8.A.Rubanantham 9.T.Krishnammal 10.T.Natesan Gramani 11.K.Kamaraj 12.P.Sengalani Gramini 13.Raja Badhar 14.P.S.Vinayagam 15.B.Kanniappan 16.R.Kanniappan 17.K.Dhandapani ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the office of the second respondent culminated in the impugned order in R.C.No.5254/ 2013/B dated 07.02.2014 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.R.Rukmani For Respondents : Mr.Abishekmurthy, Government Advocate.
O R D E R
The present writ petition has been filed by Nemmeli Arulmigu Alavandar Nayagar Charities Represented by its Executive Officer, Mamallapuram, Thirukalukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District calling for the records from the office of the second respondent culminated in the impugned order in R.C.No.5254/2013/B dated 07.02.2014 and quash the same.
2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued a direction to sub-divide the lands and thereafter prepare the details of the lands and its sub division and submit a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu.
3. The Internal Administrative Communication between the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar cannot be challenged in the writ proceedings. Since the said Internal Administrative Communication would not provide a cause for the writ petition, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Tahsildar, Tirupporur to verify the records and prepare
documents to sub-divide the lands and informed the details of the subdivisions and accordingly to submit the report.
4. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer instructed the Tahsildar, Tirupporur to submit a report before the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the issues raised. Such a procedure would not provide a cause for filing the writ petition and if any final order has been passed pursuant to the report if any submitted by the Tahsildar, then alone the petitioner would be in a position to approach the Appellate Authority or otherwise for the purpose of redressal of his grievances.
5. The impugned order reveals that the Tahsildar has already conducted an enquiry by affording an opportunity to all the parties concerned.
6. The present writ petition was instituted prematurely and the Internal Administrative Communication cannot be the subject matter of the present writ petition, since the Revenue Divisional Officer instructed the Tahsildar to submit a report regarding the land details and the sub-division
to be made.
7. This being the factum, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Competent Authority, if any grievance exists at this length of time.
8. With the abovesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25-04-2023 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Svn To 1.District Revenue Officer, Office of the Collectorate, 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu Town and Taluk,
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn 3.The Tahsildar, Tirupporur Taluk, WP 17551 of 2014 25-04-2023