High Court · 2025

W.P. No.32781 of 2025 W.P. No.32781 of 2025andW.M.P. Nos.36703 & 36707 of 2025M. DHANDAPANI, J.Today, the matter is listed under the caption “For Being Mentioned”, at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners.2. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are some typographical errors in paragraph Nos.4 and 6 of the order dated 01.09.2025. They are as follows :- i) In para 4, rejection of suit was allowed vide order dated 06.11.2024, instead of 06.11.2025; ii) In para 6, it has been wrongly mentioned as, “if the limitation period has not expired” andiii) To address portion to be corrected. 3. In view of the above, he prays for necessary corrections of the aforesaid portions of the order dated 01.09.2025. 4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, paragraphs Nos.4 and 6 are substituted with the following :-1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.32781 of 2025 4. The case of the petitioners is that, they are the owners of the subject property. Whileso, the 5th respondent has illegally taken the possession of the subject property on the basis of the forged unregistered sale agreement, thereby, the petitioners have made a complaint before the law enforcing agency, which was registered as Crime No.64 of 2024. To counter the same, the 5th respondent made a false complaint and the same was registered as Crime No.65 of 2024. Thereafter, the 5th respondent also made a complaint before the revenue officials against the petitioners, pursuant to which, the 4th respondent has passed the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 in terms of Section 15(iii) of Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licencing) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'). In addition to that, the 5th respondent had also filed a suit in O.S.No.19 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Valparai, in which, the petitioners have filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.6 of 2024 seeking to reject the suit filed by the 5th respondent and the same was allowed vide order dated 06.11.2024. Challenging the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent, the petitioners have filed this writ petition before this Court. 6. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court, without interfering with the impugned order, grants liberty to the petitioners to approach the appellate authority to workout the remedy in the manner known to law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any appeal is filed by the petitioners within the stipulated time, the appellate 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.32781 of 2025 authority is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and aggrieved persons, if any. The period during which the writ petition was pending before this Court shall be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation. 5. Except for the above modification, the remaining part of the order dated 01.09.2025 shall stand unaltered.6. Insofar as any errors in “to address” portion of the order below the signature is concerned, no separate order needs to be passed in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P. No.1253 of 2023 dated 23.06.2025, wherein it has been held that any portion below the signature portion would not be covered under the ambit of order. Therefore, Registry is directed to follow the order passed in H.C.P. No.1253 of 2023 dated 23.06.2025, henceforth and shall not place the bundle seeking correction before the Court. 11.11.2025vsi23/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.32781 of 2025 M.DHANDAPANI, J.vsi2W.P. No.32781 of 2025andW.M.P. Nos.36703 & 36707 of 202511.11.20254/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.32781 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 01.09.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANIW.P.No.32781 of 2025andW.M.P.Nos.36703 & 36707 of 20251.R.Kavitha2.R.Ramprakash3.R.Sandya Lakshmi... PetitionersVs.1.The District Collector, Office of District Collectorate, Coimbatore District.2.The District Revenue Officer, Office of District Collectorate, Coimbatore District.3.The Sub Collector, Valparai Division, Coimbatore District.4.The Tahsildar, Valparai Taluk, Coimbatore District.5.Prabhu ... RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records made in 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.32781 of 2025 impugned order in Na.Ka.No.357/2024, dated 30.04.2024 on the file of 4th respondent and quash the same.For Petitioners:Mr.B.Manoharanfor M/s.S.Mannar SamyFor Respondents:Mr.G.VeluAdditional Government Pleader [R1 to R4]Notice dispensed with [R5]*****ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records made in impugned order in Na.Ka.No.357/2024, dated 30.04.2024 on the file of 4th respondent and quash the same.2. Since no adverse order has been passed against the 5th respondent, notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with.3. Mr.G.Velu, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. In view of the consent expressed by the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.32781 of 2025 4. The case of the petitioners is that, they are the owners of the subject property. Whileso, the 5th respondent has illegally taken the possession of the subject property on the basis of the forged unregistered sale agreement, thereby, the petitioners have made a complaint before the law enforcing agency, which was registered as Crime No.64 of 2024. To counter the same, the 5th respondent made a false complaint and the same was registered as Crime No.65 of 2024. Thereafter, the 5th respondent also made a complaint before the revenue officials against the petitioners, pursuant to which, the 4th respondent has passed the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 in terms of Section 15(iii) of Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licencing) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'). In addition to that, the 5th respondent had also filed a suit in O.S.No.19 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Valparai, in which, the petitioners have filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.6 of 2024 seeking to reject the suit filed by the 5th respondent and the same was allowed vide order dated 06.11.2025. Challenging the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent, the petitioners have filed this writ petition before this Court. 5. Though very many grounds have been raised in this writ petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, as against the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent, there is an effective appeal 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.32781 of 2025 remedy available under the Act. Hence, he prays that, this Court may grant the above liberty to the petitioners.6. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court, without interfering with the impugned order, grants liberty to the petitioners to approach the appellate authority to workout the remedy in the manner known to law, if the limitation period has not expired, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any appeal is filed by the petitioners within the stipulated time, the appellate authority is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and aggrieved persons, if any.7. With the above liberty, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.01.09.2025Index : Yes / No (½)Speaking order / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation Case : Yes/NospTo8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.32781 of 2025 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri – 635 001.2.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri – 635 001.3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri – 635 002.4.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk Office, Hosur – 635 109. 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.32781 of 2025 M.DHANDAPANI, J.spW.P.No.32781 of 202501.09.2025(½)10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.32781 of 2025 W.M.P.No.36701 of 2025inW.P.No.32781 of 2025M.DHANDAPANI,J.Ordered on payment of single court fee.01.09.2025sp(2/2)11/11