Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3332
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
Revathi Mathu – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.28904 of 2024 | W.M.P(MD)No.24486 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan
For the Respondents: Mr.C.Satheesh, Mr.M.Rajaraman
Orders made by authorities must adhere to jurisdictional boundaries, especially when related suits are pending.
Headnote:The Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Tahsildar, Thirumangalam, dated 27.09.2024, which granted a partition decree beyond jurisdiction. The court set aside clause No.4 of the order and sustained clauses 1 to 3. The I Additional District Court, Madurai was directed to expeditiously dispose of the pending suit O.S.No.249 of 2024. The final ruling determined the directions to be implemented.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges jurisdiction of tahsildar's order. (Para 1) |
| 2. court discusses implications of the order and directives for expediting suit. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court disposes of petition with directions. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
The Writ Petition challenges the order of the Tahsildar, Thirumangalam, dated 27.09.2024.
2.Heard Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.M.Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the impugned proceedings dated 27.09.2024 in and whereby the Tahsildar, Thirumangalam, has actually granted a partion decree, clearly beyond his jurisdiction. Admittedly, even according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the contesting respondents 5 and 6, there is a suit for partition pending in O.S.No.249 of 2024 before the District Court, Madurai.
4.In view of the above, the order dated 27.09.2024 insofar as clause No.4 is set aside. Insofar as clause Nos.1 to 3, in view of the fair concession of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order need not be interfered with as the contesting respondents are entitled to the respective rights declared therein, the said order of the Tahsildar insofar as clauses 1 to 3 is sustained and clause No.4 alone is set aside.
5.The learned counsel for the fifth respondent would seek for a direction to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.249 of 2024 within a time frame.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is only in the stage of service of summons.
7.Considering the above, the I Additional District Court, Madurai is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.249 of 2024, expeditiously.
8.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index:Yes/No 03.02.2025 Internet:Yes/No NCC:Yes/No sji To
1.The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam, Taluk Office Complex, Virudhunagar Road, Thirumangalam, Madurai-625 706.
2.The Deputy Tahsildar, Thirumangalam, Taluk Office Complex, Virudhunagar Road, Thirumangalam, Madurai-625 706.
3.The Village Administrative Officer, Urappanor Bit-1, Thirumangalam, Madurai District, Tamil Nadu.
4.The Taluk Surveyor, Thirumangalam, Taluk Office Complex, Virudhunagar Road, Thirumangalam, Madurai-625 706.
Copy to The I Additional District Court, Madurai.
P.B.BALAJI,J.
sji and W.M.P(MD)No.24486 of 2024
03.02.2025
