Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
Thiru S.Velusamy – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai Municipality,
W.A.No.2482 of 2021 and C.M.P.Nos.16168 & 16240 of 2021
Decided on : 12-06-2024
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellant : Mr.M.A.Vimalamohan
For the Respondent: Mr.P.Srinivas
IMPORTANT POINT
A writ petition cannot be used to enforce a judgment when the party has failed to pursue the appropriate execution process within the stipulated time frame.
Headnote:
Writ Appeal - Municipal Land Lease - The court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition challenging a notice from the Mayiladuthurai Municipality regarding a footpath land, emphasizing that the appellant should have pursued execution of a prior judgment through the appropriate court rather than filing a writ petition, which was deemed untenable.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged a notice from the Mayiladuthurai Municipality stating that a footpath land could not be leased or sold to him, despite a prior judgment in his favor regarding the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's recourse to a writ petition was inappropriate as he should have approached the Execution Court, given that the time limit for filing an execution petition had expired.
Issues: Whether the appellant could challenge the municipality's notice through a writ petition instead of pursuing execution of a prior judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a writ petition is not a suitable remedy for enforcing a judgment when the appropriate legal recourse, such as an execution petition, is available and has not been pursued.
Result: The court confirmed the dismissal of the writ petition and dismissed the Writ Appeal, closing all connected miscellaneous petitions.
JUDGMENT :
[Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 08.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.14042 of 2021 on the file of this High Court and allow the writ petition.
The notice dated 26.03.2021 issued by the Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai Municipality stating that the subject land belonging to the Municipality is not given on lease was under challenge in the writ petition filed by the writ appellant before us.
2. The notice issued by the Mayiladuthurai Municipality would reveal that the subject land is a footpath and belongs to Mayiladuthurai Municipality. The said land cannot be sold to the appellant. Therefore, the check sent by the appellant for Rs.516/- was returned.
3. The appellant filed the writ petition to quash the said order and convey the subject land in his favour as per the directions of the High Court in Second Appeal No.1243 of 1991 dated 23.10.2022.
4. No doubt, the appellant is armed with the judgment passed in S.A.No.1243 of 1991 dated 23.10.2022. With reference to the said judgment passed in the Second Appeal, no writ petition is entertainable and the appellant ought to have approached the Execution Court during the relevant point of time. Without approaching the Execution Court under the Civil Procedure Code, the appellant have chosen to file the writ petition seeking implementation of the order passed in Second Appeal, which is untenable.
5. The learned Single Judge considered these aspects and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner has chosen to file a writ petition in view of the fact that time limit contemplated for filing an execution petition expired. Such a ground by the petitioner cannot be considered by the Writ Court for the purpose of executing the judgment passed in the Second Appeal.
6. Thus, we are inclined to confirm the order impugned passed in the writ petition and stands confirmed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
