Mohaideen Abdul Kadar, v. The Tashildar,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.02.2017 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD)No. 7238 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).No.1 & 2 of 2013 Mohaideen Abdul Kadar ... Petitioner vs.

1. Tahsildar, Peravurnai Taluk Office, Thanjavur District.

2. Raja Mohammed ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1533/2013/A1 dated 22.03.2013 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.R.Murugesan For R1 : Mr.Ayiram K.Selvakumar Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.N.Balakrishnan

O R D E R

The petitioner had purchased a property in the Survey No.179/8 through a registered sale deed dated 19.07.1977. A separate patta was also granted in favour of the petitioner and the said property was renumbered as Survey No.179/8A2. The second respondent herein seems to have made an application before the first respondent and by an order dated 22.03.2013, the parties were directed to use the lands in Survey No.179/8A2 as a common pathway. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the land in old Survey No.179/8, new Survey No.179/8A2 for his private enjoyment and that the second respondent has no right over the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the first respondent while passing the impugned order had not given any opportunity to him and that the order is in violation of the principles of natural https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

justice.

3.The learned counsel for the second respondent on the other hand, submitted that he had been enjoying the subject land for a considerable period and since the petitioner had objected his enjoyment, he had filed a suit in O.S.No.138 of 2013 seeking for a decree of easement by prescription.

4.On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents and after perusing the records submitted by them, it is seen that the first respondent while passing the impugned order had not granted any opportunity for the petitioner to put forth his case. The order has been passed behind his back, whereby the second respondent was also permitted to use the subject land as pathway, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the same, the impugned order in regular course would have been liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 5.Nevertheless, since the second respondent has now chosen to file a suit in O.S.No.

138 of 2013 seeking for easementary rights over the subject lands, it would be open to the second respondent to work out his remedy and seek for appropriate interim reliefs before the Civil Court and hence it would not be appropriate for this Court to remit back the matter to the Tahsildar, since the identical proceedings are now pending before the Civil Court. 6.Under such circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Tahsildar, Peravurnai Taluk Office, Thanjavur District.

+1 cc to M/S.D.R.MURUGESAN, Advocate SR.No.8287 +1 cc to M/S.N.BALAKRISHNAN, Advocate SR.No.8150 +1 cc to Special Government Pleader SR.No.8099 W.P.(MD)No.7238 of 2013 13.02.2017 SMA/BS/27.02.2017:2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/