BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 25/07/2006
Coram :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. TAMILVANAN
Writ Appeal No. 169 of 2006
1. K. Perumal
2. M. Bakkiyam
3. R. Subbulakshmi
4. Panchammal
5. Poonkudi
6. Minor Hariharan
7. Minor Arjunan ... Appellants
Minors rep. by 5th appellant
vs
1. The Sub Collector,
Sivakasi.
2. The Tahsildar,
Sivakasi Taluk. ... Respondents
Writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
26.04.2006 made in W.P. No: 3740 of 2006 by a learned single Judge of this
Court.
!For appellants ... Mr. A. Sivaji
^For respondents ... Mr. Rajarajan,
Government Advocate
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. Sathasivam, J.)
The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single
Judge dated 26.04.2006 passed in W.P. No: 3740 of 2006 in and by which the
learned Judge, after finding that against the order passed by the Sub Collector
an appeal lies before the District Collector, dismissed the writ petition as not
maintainable.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Government advocate for the respondents. At the outset, Mr.A. Sivaji, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, by drawing our attention to two
instructions of the Commissioner, Land Administration and District Revenue
Officer as well as the impugned order of the Sub Collector dated 17.03.2006,
contended that inasmuch as the order came to be passed by the Sub Collector on
the specific direction of the two authorities who are none else than the
appellate and revisional authorities, the learned single Judge is not right in
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of available of alternate remedy. In
other words, according to him in view of the fact that the order came to be
passed on the specific direction of the said two authorities, which is evident
from the subject and the contents, this Court has ample power to go into the
merits of the case.
3. In order to appreciate the above contentions, it is useful to refer to
the relevant portions from the order which is as follows :
‘rptfhrp rhh; Ml;rpah; mth;fs; eltof;iffs;
Kd;dpiy :- jpUkjp g{$h Fy;fh;dp ,.M.g.
e.f.gp.2.8507/05 ehs; 17.03.2006
bghUs; . epy xg;gil – rptfhrp tl;lk; –
rf;fputhh;gl;o fpuhkk; – r.vz;.214
kw;Wk; 215d; Kiwnflhf gl;lh
tHq;fpaJ uj;J bra;J cj;jputplg;gl;lJ
bjhlh;ghf.
ghh;it .1. rptfhrp tl;lhl;rpah; cj;jput[
ep.o.rp.1/1414 ehs; 14.08.2004
2.brd;idapy; cs;s epy eph;thf
Mizahpd; neKf e.f.,.
2.4300/05 ehs; 19.01.2006
3.khtl;l tUtha; mYtyf ne.K.f.
4.2902/05 ehs; 13.02.2006.
.. .. ..
cj;jput[ –
rptfhrp tl;lk; rf;fputhh;gl;o fpuhkk; r.vz;. 214 kw;Wk; 215d; muR
g[wk;nghf;fpy; xg;gil tHq;fg;gl;l epyq;fs; ,Jtiuapy; tptrhak; bra;ag;glhky;
cs;sjhYk; nkYk; xg;gil bgw;w egh;fs; ehq;fSk; _ gjp ngg;gh; kpy;]; mjpghpd; fPH;
gzpg[hpa[k; njhl;lfhuh;fs; vd;gjhy; mtuJ gpdhkpfs; vd;w Tw;W bjspthfpwJ
vd;gjhYk; epy xg;gilg;gphpt[ uj;J bra;a[k;go ghh;it 2 kw;Wk; 3y; fhZk;
fojj;jpd;go
mwpt[Wj;jpajpd; nghpy; rptfhrp tl;lhl;rpauhy; ghh;it .1y; fhZk;
eltof;iffspd;go fPH;fz;l egh;fSf;F tHq;fg;gl;l epy xg;gil ,jd;Kyk; uj;J bra;J
cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.’
Inasmuch as the Sub Collector passed an order cancelling the assignment in
favour of the appellants, on the basis of the direction issued by the District
Revenue Officer and Commissioner Land Administration, the reasonings of the
learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition cannot be sustained and the
same is liable to be set aside.
4. In the normal circumstance, in view of the above conclusion the writ
petition has to be heard by the learned single Judge on merits. We are not
inclined to do the same in view of the following reasons :
“The Sub Collector has passed the impugned order not only on the basis of
the directions of the appellate and revisional authorities, but also has
concluded that the assigned lands were not cultivated and the appellants are
benamies of Sripathy Paper Mills under whom they are working as gardeners. As
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, how the Sub
Collector has arrived at such a conclusion without affording an opportunity to
the appellants is not known. On the ground of violation of the principles of
natural justice, the order impugned before the learned single Judge cannot
stand.”
5. In the light of what is stated above, the order of the Sub Collector,
Sivakasi, the first respondent herein, dated 17.03.2006 is quashed. However,
the Sub Collector, if he so desires, is free to proceed afresh. The Sub
Collector is directed not to consider the directions issued by the District
Revenue Officer and Commissioner, Land Administrative, they being appellate and
revisional authorities, and decide the matter independently one way or other
in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity to the appellants.
The writ appeal is allowed on the above terms. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
Copy to :
1. The Sub Collector,
Sivakasi.
2. The Tahsildar,
Sivakasi Taluk.