✦ High Court of India · 01 Sep 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 01 Sep 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

01 Sep 2025

Bench

M.DHANDAPANI

Length

1,105 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Records of Tenancy Rights Act 1969

W.P.Nos.33043, 33052 & 33055 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 01.09.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANIW.P.Nos.33043, 33052 & 33055 of 2025andWMP.Nos.37078, 37080 & 37093 to 37096 of 20251.Ravi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.33043 of 20252.Thangavel ... Petitioner in W.P.No.33052 of 20253.Jayapal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.33055 of 2025Vs.1.The Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Tiruvarur, Tiruvarur District.2.The Tahsildar, Kodavasal Taluk, Tiruvarur District. ... Respondents 1 and 2 in all W.Ps.3.Narayanan 4.Kasirajan 5.Mohan ... Respondents 3 to 5 in W.P.No.33043 of 20256.Narayanan 7.Usha8.Prasanthi9.Kasirajan10.Lakshmiprabha ... Respondents 3 to 7 in W.P.No.33052 of 202511.Narayanan12.Usha13.Prasanthi14.Kasirajan Page No.1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.33043, 33052 & 33055 of 202515.Lakshmiprabha 16.Sudha ... Respondents 3 to 8 in W.P.No.33052 of 2025Prayer in W.P.No.33043 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in appeal dated 23.06.2022 filed by the respondents 3 to 5 before the 1st respondent in Ku.Oo.Pa.Me.Mu. Petition No.01/2022 against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.02.2005 in Ku.Oo.Pa.No.11/2005, quash the same.Prayer in W.P.No.33052 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in appeal dated 23.06.2022 filed by the respondents 3 to 7 before the 1st respondent in Ku.Oo.Pa.Me.Mu. Petition No.03/2022 against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.02.2005 in Ku.Oo.Pa.No.10/2005, quash the same.Prayer in W.P.No.33055 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in appeal dated 23.06.2022 filed by the respondents 3 to 8 before the 1st respondent in Ku.Oo.Me.Mu.Petition.No.02/2022 against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.02.2005 in Ku.Oo.Pa.No.12/2005, quash the same.For Petitioner(in all W.Ps.):Mr.V.ElangovanFor Respondents(in all W.Ps.):Mr.G.VeluAdditional Government Pleader [R1 & R2]*****COMMON ORDERThese Writ Petitions have been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings in the respective appeal dated 23.06.2022 filed by the respective private respondents before the 1st respondent in Ku.Oo.Me.Mu Page No.2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.33043, 33052 & 33055 of 2025Petition Nos.01, 03 & 02 of 2022 respectively against the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 10.02.2005 in Ku.Oo.Pa.Nos.11, 10 & 12 of 2005 respectively.2. Since no adverse order is being passed against the respective private respondents, notice to the respective private respondents is dispensed with.3. Mr.G.Velu, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 in all Writ petitions. In view of the consent expressed by the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.4. The case of the respective petitioner is that one Narayanan and Rajagopal are the owners of the subject properties, which are referred to wetland or irrigated land. The respective petitioner have entered into lease as a cultivating tenant between the said Narayana and Rajagopal and the said lease was registered before the 2nd respondent by orders 10.02.2005 in Ku.Oo.Pa.Nos.11, 10 & 12 of 2005 u/s 4(2), 5(i)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Records of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.33043, 33052 & 33055 of 2025Thereafter, the respective petitioner were in possession and doing agriculture in the subject properties. Whileso, some of the private respondents restrained the respective petitioner from doing agriculture in the above land and tried to encroach the subject properties. However, the respective petitioner prevented them from encroaching the subject properties with the help of neighbour land owners. Therefore, the respective petitioner filed suits in O.S.Nos.15 and 13 of 2021 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Nannilam against the said respondents for the relief of permanent injunction. Pending suits, the respective private respondents filed appeals before the 1st respondent against the order dated 10.02.2005 on the file of the 2nd respondent with the delay of 17 years and the same was taken on file as Ku.Oo.Me.Mu. Petition Nos.01, 03 & 02 of 2022, without deciding the limitation aspect. As against the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent in the said appeals, the respective petitioner have filed these writ petitions before this Court.5. The learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioner submit that as per rule, the period for preferring an appeal is only 60 days. Though the 2nd respondent has passed the orders in the year 2005, Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.33043, 33052 & 33055 of 2025however after a period of 15 years, the private respondents have preferred appeals before the 1st respondent, which is wholly unsustainable. Further, the private respondents are not the aggrieved persons and the original owners are the aggrieved persons. Accordingly, he prays for allowing these writ petitions.6. On the above contentions, heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.7. Admittedly, the said Narayanan and Rajagopal are the original owners of the subject properties and the respective petitioner have entered lease with them, which was registered before the 2nd respondent vide order dated 10.02.2005. Subsequently, in the year 2020, some of the private respondents have purchased the said properties from the original owners when the record of tenancy is in force in favour of the respective petitioner. Thereafter, the respective petitioner have filed suits, in which, though initially injuction was granted, subsequently the injunction was vacatted. Since the record of tenancy is in favour of the respective petitioner, the private respondents have preferred appeals before the 1st Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.33043, 33052 & 33055 of 2025respondent as against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. If at the respective petitioner have any grievance, they have to approach the appellate authority for appropriate remedy. Without doing so, filing these writ petitions after a period of three years from filing of the appeals by the private respondents before the 1st respondent is per se unsustainable. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the respective petitioner cannot be granted and these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.8. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, liberty is granted to all the respective petitioner to canvass all the points before the appellate authority in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.01.09.2025Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation Case : Yes/NospPage No.6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.33043, 33052 & 33055 of 2025To1.The Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Tiruvarur, Tiruvarur District.2.The Tahsildar, Kodavasal Taluk, Tiruvarur District.Page No.7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.33043, 33052 & 33055 of 2025M.DHANDAPANI, J.spW.P.Nos.33043, 33052 & 33055 of 2025andWMP.Nos.37078, 37080 & 37093 to 37096 of 202501.09.2025Page No.8 of 8

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Constitution of India