K.Murugesan v. M.Panneeselvam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.03.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Murugesan ..

Petitioner Vs.

1. M.Paneerselvam

2. The Home Secretary Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai.

3. The Commissioner Prohibition and Excise Chepauk, Chennai.

4. The District Collector O/o. The District Collector Trichy District, Trichy.

5. The Tahsildar O/o. Tahsildar Office Thuraiyur Taluk Trichy District, Trichy.

6. The Block Development Officer Thuraiyur Block, Trichy District.

7. The Manager O/o. District TASMAC Office Old Building, 1st Floor DRO Room, Trichy.

..

Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 16.03.2023 in W.P.No.7922 of 2023.

For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Syed Mustafa for Mr.K.P.Jotheeswaran For the Respondents : Mr.D.Ashok Kumar for R1 Mr.C.Kathiravan Special Government Pleader for R2 to R6

ORDER

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Mr.S.Syed Mustafa, learned counsel appearing for Mr.K.P.Jotheeswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent 1 and Mr.C.Kathiravan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 6.

2. The contention of the review applicant is that without issuing notice to him in the writ petition, the impugned order has been passed. The land in question is not an agricultural land. It is a tharisu

land.

3. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the land in question is an agricultural land. The said aspect was considered and the order under review was passed.

4. It is not disputed by any of the parties that the order under review was passed without issuing notice to the present applicant, who was respondent 7 in the writ petition. Whether the land is an agricultural land or otherwise will have to be decided after considering the case put forth by the present applicant and the original writ petitioner.

5. In the light of that, the order under review is set aside and recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original position. The review application, accordingly, stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 21.03.2024 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No

drm To

1. The Home Secretary Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai.

2. The Commissioner Prohibition and Excise Chepauk, Chennai.

3. The District Collector O/o. The District Collector Trichy District, Trichy.

4. The Tahsildar O/o. Tahsildar Office Thuraiyur Taluk Trichy District, Trichy.

5. The Block Development Officer Thuraiyur Block, Trichy District.

6. The Manager O/o. District TASMAC Office Old Building, 1st Floor DRO Room, Trichy.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(drm) 21.03.2024