R. Kanakambarapushpam v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.(MD)No.23594 of 2019 1.R.Kanakambarapushpam 2.M.Sandhiya Devi 3.M.J.Renuka 4.S.Rajamathi ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.
2.The Special Tahsildar, Bodinaickenur Taluk, Bodinaickenur, Theni District.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Special Tahsildar, Bodinaickenur Taluk, second respondent herein, to implement his order dated 06.07.2018, made in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.24/2016 and to issue joint patta in respect of the lands of the petitioners to an extent of about 2 Acres 83 Cents comprised in T.S.No.162, Bodinaickanur and an extent of about 0.09 Acres comprised in S.No.161/1 Bodinaickenur Village, Theni District, also by considering the representation of the petitioners dated 02.08.2019 within a time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner :Mr.G.Aravinthan For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Mr.G.Aravinthan, learned Counsel on record for writ petitioner and Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for both respondents (officials respondents) are before this Court.
2. Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings of this Court dated 08.11.2019, which reads as follows:
'Four writ petitioners before this Court had filed a suit in O.S.No.69 of 1987, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Periyakulam against State of Tamil Nadu 1/9
represented by the Collector pertaining to five schedules of properties ie., A, B, C, D, E schedules. The suit was dismissed on 18.04.1991 and the same was carried to this Court by the writ petitioners by way of a regular first appeal under Section 96 of 'The Civil Procedure Code, 1908' ( hereinafter 'CPC' for brevity) being Appeal No.7 of 1993. Writ petitioners' appeal was allowed by a Honourable Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2006. Decree of this Court together with five (5) schedules are as follows:
2/9
3/9
4/9
5/9
6/9
2. Writ petitioners had sought mutation of revenue records pursuant to aforesaid decree and have been pursuing the same. The second respondent had made proceedings dated 06.07.2018 bearing Na.Ka.No.24/2016 and the most relevant portion reads as follows: ' brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w nky;KiwaPL tHf;F V.v];.07/1993d; 08.11.2006e; njjpa jPh;g ;gpd ; nghpy; muR jug;gpy; ,uz;lhk ; nky;KiwaPL jhf;fy ; bra;ag ;gLkhapd; mjpy; tHq;fg ;gLk ; ,Wjpj; jPh;g ;gpw ;F ,t;thiz fl;Lg ;gl ;lJ vdt[k ; bjhptpf;fg ;gLfpwJ. '
3. Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of both respondents very fairly submitted that there cannot be any Second Appeal against the aforementioned First Appeal decree of this Court and therefore such interference is obviously a reference to Special Leave Petition in the Honourable Supreme Court of India if any.
4. The issue is therefore narrowed down and the only issue is whether there is any Special Leave Petition in the Honourable Supreme Court of India against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 08.11.2006 made in A.S.No.7 of 1993. If there is any Special Leave Petition, parties have to await outcome of the same. If that be not so, AS decree has to be given effect to.
5. To be noted, this proceedings have been made to narrow down the issues.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions about whether the State has preferred any Special Leave Petition at all and if yes, State has to set out outcome / stage of the same.
7. Registry to show the name of the State Counsel in the next listing. List in the motion List on 13.11.2019.'
3. Most relevant part of the earlier proceedings is contained in paragraph Nos.3 and 4.
7/9
4. Pursuant to earlier proceedings, learned State Counsel on instructions submits that there is no Special Leave Petition as of today against the judgment and decree of this Court dated 18.11.2006 made in A.S.No.7 of 1993. If this be the case, the decree of this Court has to necessarily be given effect by making necessary and consequential entries and changes in the revenue records. In this regard, penultimate paragraph of 06.07.2018 proceedings of second respondent is of relevance. To be noted, the penultimate paragraph of 06.07.2018 proceedings of the second respondent has also been extracted and reproduced in paragraph No.2 in 08.11.2019 proceedings of this Court, which has been extracted and set out supra. As there is no Special Leave Petition as of today, it follows as a sequitur that as of today, the aforesaid judgment and decree of this Court have attained finality.
5. Learned Counsel for writ petitioner makes a plea that 02.08.2019 representation of the writ petitioner may please be directed to be disposed of in accordance with the judgment and decree of this Court.
6. The second respondent shall dispose of 02.08.2019 representation of writ petitioner (page Nos.49 and 50 of typed set of papers forming part of the case file) in accordance with the judgment and decree of this Court dated 18.11.2006 made in A.S.No.7 of 1993 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The disposal of representation by making necessary changes qua entries in the revenue records shall also be communicated to the writ petitioner under due acknowledgement within seven (7) working days from the date of disposal.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-I) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) SSL To 1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.
8/9
2.The Special Tahsildar, Bodinaickenur Taluk, Bodinaickenur, Theni District.
+1 CC to Mr.G.ARAVINTHAN, Advocate ( SR-98213[F] dated 14/11/2019 ) +1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-98403[F] dated 14/11/2019 ) W.P.(MD)No.23594 of 2019 13.11.2019 VB(04.12.2019) 9P 5C 9/9