Madras High Court
A.Ponnusamy vs /
W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 25.03.2025
Delivered on : 09.05.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13382, 13384 of 2020 and 6253 of 2021
A.Ponnusamy ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1. The District Revenue Officer
Office of the DRO, Karur.
2. The Sub Registrar
Karur, Karur District.
3. Ammaiyappan
4. Maragathamani,
5. A. Saravanan
6. A.Tamilselvi
7. A.Rukmani
8. A. Shanmugapriya
(R4 to 8 are impleaded vide Court order dated
21.10.2024 in WMP(MD)No.19587/2024) ... Respondents
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st
respondent in Na.Ka.No.C3/3453/2013 dated 02.11.2019 quash the same
and consequently direct the 1st respondent to restore the joint patta in the
name of the petitioner and other joint patta holders in respect of lands
measuring an extent of 7.65 acres in S.No.379/1A, 1B, 1C, in Karur
Village, Karur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader for R1&2
: Mr.V.Ragavachari, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Ramesh for R 3-8
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.C3/3453/2013 dated 02.11.2019 and consequently seeks restoration of joint patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of lands measuring an extent of 7.65 acres, comprised in S.No.379/1A, 1B, 1C, situated at Karur Village, Karur District.
2/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020
2. I have heard Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah, for the petitioner; Mr.V.Ragavachari, learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.S.Ramesh for the respondents 3 to 8 and Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.
3. The brief case of the writ petitioner is as follows:-
The petitioner claims to be the descendent of one, Ammaiappan, and according to the petitioner, he represents the interests of joint patta holders, numbering 36 persons, who are his brothers and cousins and relatives, all from the same family and descendents of Ammaiappan.
4. The petitioner contends that the property, measuring 9.28 Acres in old survey Nos. 587 and 588 and new survey Nos.379/1A, 1B and 1C, situated at Karur Village, Karur District, was originally belonging to one Pari Veetu Ammaiappa Gounder and his family. Further the case of the writ petitioner is that right from 1902, the subject property has been in enjoyment of their predecessors-in-interest. In fact, the specific contention of the petitioner is that one Palanimalai Gounder executed a 3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 registered sale deed in respect of 3.5 Acres in survey No.588 in favour of Karuppanna Gounder, S/o. Ammaiappa Gounder. Again on 26.08.1905; one Kaliyammal executed a registered sale deed vide document No. 1979/1905, in favour of the petitioner's father, viz., Ammaiappan Gounder and Kalianna Gounder, in respect of 1093 acres in old survey No.587 and new survey No.379. On 31.11.1909; further in respect of an extent of 92.5 cents in old survey No.587 and new survey No.379, the said Ammaiappa Gounder executed a registered sale deed vide document No. 2880/1909, in favour of Karuppanna Gounder; further between 1916 and 1955, the subject lands were transferred, settled and also partitioned. Subsequently, Karur Village was included under the Notification issued under the Tamil Nadu Estate Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 and the subject lands comprised in survey Nos.379/1A, 1B and 1C belonging to Ammaiyappan family was added in the settlement register. In the year 1987, the Government introduced U.D.R scheme and at that point of time, joint patta in respect of 9.82 Acres in survey Nos.379/1A, 1B and 1C was mutated in the name of 26 persons, who were all family members of Ammaiappa Gounder, being the original owner. Joint patta No.1417 was also issued on 24.01.1986 and according to the petitioner, he along 4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 with the other joint pattadhars has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands.
5. It is further stated in the affidavit that in the year 1987, an extent of 2.17 acres out of 9.82 acres was acquired by the Government, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purposes of road widening for the National Highways. At that point of time, the third respondent, claiming to be the sole owner of the subject lands, taking advantage of common name of Ammaiappan, represented himself to be the sole owner of the said 2.17 Acres. Even according to the petitioner, the said claim of the third respondent was contested by some of the joint pattadhars before the reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act, proceedings were taken in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1988 before the Sub Court, Karur, which ultimately held in favour of the third respondent in respect of 2.17 Acres that was sought to be acquired. The aggrieved parties, being some of the pattadhars, preferred an appeal in A.S.No.102 of 2000 and the District Court confirmed the order of the L.A.O.P. The aggrieved pattadhars preferred second appeal in S.A.No.42 of 2002, which according to the petitioner, has been pending on the date of filing of the writ petition. 5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020
6. The third respondent, drawing strength from the proceedings in the L.A.O.P court, which came to be confirmed by the First Appellate Court as well, approached the first respondent to cancel the patta in respect of 9.82 Acres standing in the name of the petitioner and other pattadhars. The first respondent by order dated 13.03.2002 deferred the proceedings in view of the pendency of S.A.No.42 of 2002 before this Court. The third respondent challenged the said order of the first respondent before the Land Commissioner. However, the Land Commissioner also did not pass any order, in view of the pendency of the second appeal before this Court.
7. Thereafter, the third respondent had approached this Court in W.P.No. 42464 of 2002, challenging the order of the District Revenue Officer, and the Commissioner of Land Administration deferring the hearing of the appeal, to cancel the joint patta standing in the name of the writ petitioner and others. This Court, by final order dated 15.11.2012, held that the Land Acquisition proceedings pertained only to 2.17 Acres out of 9.82 Acres and therefore, the same cannot bind the revenue authorities, to deprive the petitioner and others in respect of the remaining 6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 lands in survey Nos.379/1A, 1B and 1C, that is 9.82 Acres less 2.17 Acres. This Court further held that the disputes were relating to title and ownership and the same can be decided only by the competent civil Court and further finding that all pattadhars were not arrayed as parties in the L.A.O.Ps, directed the first respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry and pass final orders.
8. Aggrieved by the said order of the Writ Court, the third respondent filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.509 of 2013 before this Court. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 09.10.2017 confirmed the order of the Writ Court. Though the third respondent also filed a review petition in review application No.220 of 2017, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said review, holding that the third respondent can always file a comprehensive suit in respect of entire extent of 9.82 Acres. Thereafter, the first respondent has conducted an enquiry and passed an order dated 02.11.2019 and cancelled the patta in the joint names of various persons, including the petitioner and granted patta in favour of the third respondent, which is challenged in the present writ petition.
7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.T.Mohan, would contend that the entire land acquisition proceedings were only in respect of 2.17 Acres and insofar the remaining 7.65 Acres, there has been no adjudication by any competent civil Court. Further, he would invite my attention to the order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, confirmed in the writ appeal, by the Hon'ble Division Bench and also the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the review petition. He would further submit that right from 1902 onwards, it is the family of Ammaiappa Gounder, the petitioner's ancestors, who has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands and that at no point of time, the third respondent had any right in the subject lands. He would further contend that the third respondent cannot take advantage of the land acquisition proceedings, which were only in respect of 2.17 Acres, out of 9.82 Acres and moreso, when this Court had clearly held that in land acquisition proceedings were pertaining only to 2.17 Acres and the Reference Court (LAOP) ought not to have ventured to give any findings with regard to the total extent of 9.82 Acres. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the writ petitioner was not put on notice at any 8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 point of time and even in respect of 2.17 Acres, the proceedings were only between the third respondent and other pattadhars. Therefore, he would submit that even the findings rendered in the land acquisition proceedings would not bind the writ petitioner. Even as regards the earlier title to the subject lands referring to 1902 sale deed, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the claim of the petitioner and others was well prior in point of time and the third respondent's claim was only from 1909 that too under a settlement deed and also not earlier.
10. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar V. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs reported in 2008-4-SCC-594, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in such circumstances, suit for declaratory relief ought to have been filed and therefore, the learned Senior Counsel's contention is that despite specific observations of this Court, not once but thrice, in the writ petition, writ appeal, the review petition, finding that the petitioner is not a party and no suit for declaration has been filed, contended that the third respondent cannot put forth his claims in the absence of approaching the competent civil Court and getting his right declared to the extent of 9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 9.82 Acres or atleast the balance 7.65 Acres. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the order of the first respondent is perverse, wholly unsustainable and consequently, liable to be set aside.
11. Per contra, Mr.V.Ragavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, would submit that the writ petition is an abuse of process of law and the petitioner is only attempting re-litigation in respect of matters that have already attained finality. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that no doubt, the land acquisition proceedings, which came up to the Hon'ble Division Bench and also sought to be reviewed was only pertaining to 2.17 Acres and not in respect of the entire extent of 9.82 Acres. However, the fact remains that the second appeal in S.A.No.42 of 2002, came to be disposed by this Court on 10.03.2011, well before the writ petition came to be filed, where the claim of the third respondent in respect of entire extent of 9.82 Acres was upheld.
12. The learned Senior Counsel would also invite my attention to the dismissal of the S.L.P.No.3608 of 2012 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 on 27.12.2012, confirming the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.42 of 2002. He would also invite my attention to two applications one before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Petition No.2326 of 2012, which came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.12.2012 and one before this Court in Review SR.No.3002 of 2013, which also came to be dismissed on 06.02.2015. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel would also bring to my notice that as against the dismissal of review application S.R.No.3002 of 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also moved in SLP.No.13853 of 2015 and by order dated 11.05.2015, the said review also came to be dismissed. The learned Senior counsel would also invite my attention to various other suits inter se, the interested parties to the subject lands and contend that the petitioner has been found to have no right in respect of lands in survey Nos.379/1A, 1B and 1C and rightly the first respondent has directed issuance of patta to the third respondent, by removing the names of the joint pattadhars.
13. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr.V.Ragavachari, would further submit that the petitioner is only engaging in sponsored litigation and in this regard, he would invite my attention to the documents that have been 11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 enclosed being only given by one Palanisamy, who had earlier approached this court in W.P.No.27180 of 2019, on the very same set of facts. The said writ petition was dismissed by this court, by order dated 20.12.2019 and one another writ petition was filed by one Prakash, again set up by the said Palanisamy in W.P.No.5501 of 2020 was filed, by suppressing the earlier civil Court proceedings and as if review was pending as against the judgment and decree in S.A.No.42 of 2002. According to the learned Senior Counsel, this Court had not granted any interim order in the said writ petition filed by the said Prakash and ultimately, the said writ petition also came to be dismissed on 30.03.2023. The learned Senior Counsel would also invite attention, specifically to O.S.No.283 of 1993, which is filed by the petitioner's father, viz., Ammaiyappan himself, again, relying on the very same set of documents that have also been relied on even in the present writ petition. The said suit as well as A.S.No.95 of 2001, came to be dismissed, against the said Ammaiappan, the petitioner's father, holding that the documents that were relied on by him were fabricated and not valid. Even in the said subsequent proceedings, the rights of the third respondent have been upheld. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the findings of the civil Court are binding 12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 upon the petitioner and the same cannot be re-agitated and the present writ petition is clearly barred by principles of res judicata.
14. The learned Senior Counsel would also place reliance on the following judgments:
(i) T.B.Ramachandra Rao V. A.N.S.Ramachandra Rao reported in AIR-1922-PC-80
(ii) Raj Lakshmi Dasi & others V. Banamali Sen & others reported in 1952-2-SCC-219
(iii) Govindan Gopalan V. Raman Gopalan reported in 1978-
KLT-315
(iv) Sri Sangameswaraswamy Temple V. A.M.Kunhamo & others reported in 100-LW-41
(v) Sulochana Amma V. Narayanan Nair reported in 1994-2- SCC-14
(vi) Commissioner of Endowments & others V. Vittal Rao & others reported in 2005-4-SCC-120
(vii) Annaimuthu Thevar V. Alagammal & others reported in 2005-6-SCC-202 13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020
(viii) AKB Constructions &Engineers Pvt. Ltd. V. Sri Sri Lakshmi Janardhan Jew & Others reported in 2008-2-CAL LT-567
(ix) T.Ravi 7 another V. B.Chinna Narasimha & others reported in 2017-7-SCC-342
(x) Lankappa & others V. Karnataka Industrial Corporation & others reported in 2021-SCC Online-SC-1187
(xi) Sheodan Singh V. Daryao Kumar reported in AIR-1966- SC-1332
(xii) Hope Plantations Ltd. V. Taluk Land Board, Peermade & Others reported in 1999-5-SCC-590
(xiii) Ishwar Dutt V. Land Acquisition Collector & Another reported in 2005-7-SCC-190
(xiv) Sarat Chandra Mishra & others V. State of Orissa & others reported in 2006-1-SCC-638
(xv) Shir pathikali Amman Kovil V. The Revenue Divisional Officer & others (W.P.(MD)No.1269 of 2023 dated 14.09.2023)
15. The learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.B.Saravanan, would submit that the first respondent has afforded a fair and reasonable 14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 opportunity to the parties and has considered all material documentary evidence available on records, before passing the impugned order. He would further, submit that no interference is warranted with the said order of the first respondent, especially, in writ jurisdiction, which is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being discretionary. The learned Additional Government Pleader would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
16. I have carefully heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
17. It is not in dispute that the property comprised in Survey No. 379/1A, 1B and 1C measuring 9.82 Acres, belonged to Pasupatheeswarar temple, Karur and during the Inam Abolition Act 26/1948, settlement patta was granted in favour of one K.Ammaiappan, who is the father of the third respondent, in patta No.278. Revenue records, like Adangal, chitta was also mutated in the name of said K.Ammaiappan. In the year 1982, the Government of Tamil Nadu acquired 2.17 Acres out of 9.82 Acres for laying a bye-pass road. Pending the acquisition proceedings, 15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 the names of the petitioner and other pattadhars in patta No.1417 came to be included. The third respondent sought for entire compensation in respect of 2.17 Acres and since an objection was raised some of the co-pattadhars in patta No.1417, under which, the petitioner also claimed, the matter was referred to the Sub Court, Karur. The third respondent was the first claimant in the land acquisition proceedings in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1988. The Sub Court, Karur, after trial and enquiry, in and by judgment dated 25.08.2000, held that the first claimant, viz., the third respondent herein, was entitled to the entire extent of 9.82 Acres, out of which, 2.17 Acres was acquired by the Highways Department. The Court also found that the property in survey No.379 correlated to old survey No.587 and taking into account the statement of the temple authorities, the Sub court gave a finding that the entire extent of 9.82 Acres was under the absolute possession and enjoyment of the third respondent herein and that patta No. 1417, which came to be issued in the name of the petitioner and other persons pending the acquisition proceedings was not valid. The aggrieved claimants preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.102 of 2000 before the Additional District Court, Karur and the appeal was dismissed on 08.11.2001, finding that the first claimant, viz., the third respondent was 16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 the absolute owner of the entire lands and that the settlement patta issued to him was a document of title and the other claimants have no right in the subject lands. The second appeal filed by the other claimants in S.A.No. 42 of 2002 also came to be dismissed by this Court on 10.03.2011, confirming the findings of the Courts below. As has been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Ragavachari, attempts to challenge the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a review and also review before this Court were unsuccessful and further, SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as against the dismissal of the review petition in second appeal proceedings also came to be dismissed. It is seen that yet another suit in O.S.No.153 of 2012 came to be filed by one Palanisamy, on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur. In the said suit, the third respondent was not arrayed as a party. However, the petitioner was arrayed as 26th defendant. At the instance of the third respondent seeking to implead himself, an application to strike off the plaint, on the ground of suppression of material fact and finality of the civil Court findings, came to be entertained by the trial Court and the suit was struck off on its file. The said Palanisamy, not stopping with the said suit, has filed yet another suit in O.S.No.332 of 2012, again on the file of 17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 the Principal District Court, Karur, arraying the third respondent herein as the first defendant in the said suit. The said suit also came to be dismissed on 23.12.2016, finding that the third respondent is the absolute owner of the property and that the said Palanisamy had suppressed the earlier proceedings. The third respondent himself as plaintiff filed O.S.No.749 of 2003 for an injunction, restraining the Corporation and railway authorities from dumping waste in his lands measuring 7.65 Acres comprised in survey Nos.379/1A, 1B and 1C. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein was arrayed as 28th defendant and Ponnusamy, who had filed an earlier suit, was arrayed as 15th defendant, both of them being impleaded, pending the said suit. After trial, the said suit came to be decreed in favour of the third respondent, finding that the third respondent is the absolute owner of 7.65 Acres and that the defendants 3 to 28 cannot claim any right under documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 exhibited by them were not valid documents. The Court also found that the petitioner as well as the other defendants, including Ponnusamy were not in possession of the subject lands and that the third respondent's title had already upheld and therefore, there was no necessity for seeking a relief of declaration.
18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020
18. I find that the third respondent filed yet another O.S.No.679 of 1993, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur. In the said suit, the said Palanisamy was the 13th defendant and even in the said suit for permanent injunction, it was held that the relief of declaration was not necessary and ultimately, the trial Court found that the third respondent is in possession and that the defendants therein were not having any right in lands remaining 7.65 Acres. It was also found that the defendants in the said suit were referring to the very same set of documents, viz., Ex.B1 to Ex.B11, which had been marked in O.S.No.749 of 2003 and rejected and therefore the defendants could not place any reliance on such documents that had already been negatived / rejected in earlier proceedings.
19. One Solaiammal and another filed a suit in O.S.No.235 of 2012, for declaration and permanent injunction, before the Principal District Court, Karur and the third respondent herein as first defendant and one Palanisamy as sixth defendant. After trial, the said suit came to be dismissed by judgment dated 10.06.2016. The third respondent once again approached the Court in O.S.No.373 of 1995, seeking a direction to 19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 the revenue authorities to remove the name of the strangers from the patta. The said suit also came to be decreed on 30.07.2001.
20. The third respondent also filed a suit in O.S.No.283 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur, where the petitioner's father was arrayed as the first defendant. In the said suit, the petitioner's father claimed right in respect of only 22 cents in survey No.379, based on documents of the year 1917, in Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. However, the trial Court decreed the suit after contest on 25.08.2000 and held that the joint patta issued in the name of the petitioner and others was not valid, since it was based on invalid documents. The petitioner's father preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 95 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Court, Karur. The first Appellate Court confirming the findings of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal on 20.03.2002. Unfortunately, none of these proceedings have even been referred to in the affidavit in support of the writ petition. The writ petition merely proceeds on the basis of the issuance of joint patta to the petitioner and others and challenges the order of the first respondent on the ground that it was in violation of principles of natural justice and without reference to the observations passed by the writ Court in W.P.No. 20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 42464 of 2002 and also upheld in writ appeal in W.A.No.509 of 2013 and also confirmed in the review petition filed by the third respondent. In fact, unfortunately, in the affidavit sworn by the writ petitioner on 12th October 2020, the petitioner has stated as if the second appeal in S.A.No.42 of 2002 is pending before this Court, though the fact remains that the said second appeal was dismissed as early as on 10.03.2011. Further it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent in obedience of the terms of the writ Court as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has not chosen to file a suit to declare a title in respect of 7.65 Acres out of 9.82 Acres, in respect of survey No.379/1A, 1B and 1C and that the findings in the land acquisition proceedings would not bind the petitioner, who was not a party in the said proceedings and in any event at best, it can only be binding in respect of 2.17 Acres in question and not the remaining 7.65 Acres. Unfortunately, I see no merit in the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel. If at all there had been no other proceedings between the parties, then probably some good weightage may be attached to such contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel. However, as can be seen from the various proceedings before the competent civil Court and also writ petitions, the 21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 issue regarding title of 7.65 Acres has already been decided by the competent civil Court and the findings of the Civil Courts that suits for bare injunction were maintainable and no relief for declaration was even required, in view of the earlier findings of the Courts, has also become final. Therefore, I see no necessity for me fall back on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar's case requiring the relief for declaration to be filed for certain circumstances.
21. As regards re-agitating the issues that have already attained finality, I find force in the arguments of Mr.V.Ragavachari. It is now settled law that the principles of res judicata would apply even to writ jurisdiction. As already seen and discussed herein above, there have been several suits between the parties to which, even the present writ petitioner himself was a party to some of them. The various judgments and decrees passed in the said suits have now become final. Even the second appeal in S.A.No.42 of 2002, which was pending, at the time of consideration of the matter before the first respondent at the first instance subsequently came to be disposed of, findings being rendered in favour of the third respondent. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheodan Singh's 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 case, when issue of title was already decided on merits and an issue has been finally decided and the High Court confirming the judgment of the Courts below, was also deemed to be on merits, as otherwise it would make res judicata impossible in cases, where the trial Court dismissed the matter on merits and that the Appellate Court dismissed an appeal on same preliminary ground, confirming the decision of the trial Court on merits. It is settled law that where the decree on merits, an appeal from the decision of the trial Court merges with the decree of the Appellate Court. In the present case, the issue regarding total extent of 9.82 Acres, especially, 2.17 Acres being the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings, which came up to this Court and the remaining 7.65 Acres also being subject matter of several suits, which have also come up to this Court and attained finality, with the dismissal of the second appeal and even, thereafter, several suits, as discussed above came to be filed in respect of 7.65 Acres and throughout the Courts have held that the third respondent to be entitled to the same.
22. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1269 of 2023 (Shri Pathikali Amman Kovil V. The Revenue Divisional 23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 Officer and others), held that the principles of estoppel, res judicata and finality of judgment are matters of public policy and they contribute to the efficient administration of justice by preventing the wastage of judicial resources on repetitive litigation, besides parallel litigation and integrity of the judicial system. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench to the facts of the case, it is seen that lis in respect of the very same 7.65 Acres has been subject matter of several proceedings before competent Courts and matter has attained finality. Even though it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.T.Mohan, appearing for the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner was not a party to the land acquisition proceedings, it is seen that in two other civil suits, the petitioner was very much a party defendant and he has not chosen to challenge the decrees passed in favour of the third respondent and allowed and the same to become final. Even otherwise, the petitioner was provided ample opportunity and therefore cannot now be heard to complain of any alleged lack of opportunity. As can be seen from the records, the petitioner has been given a full opportunity to put forth all his contention and therefore, the petitioner complain of being deprived of an opportunity to put forth his claims / objections. Though several other 24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 judgments have been relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent with regard to the effect of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and binding nature of judgments passed in such proceedings, in view of the above discussions, I do not deem it necessary to go into any greater details to discuss the various judgments that had been relied on by the learned Senior Counsel.
23. Besides all the above, I have also gone through the order impugned in the present writ petition. Not only the petitioner has been afforded a fair opportunity, but, the first respondent also categorically found that the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his claim for upholding the joint patta in patta No.1417 by producing satisfactory documentary evidence. On the other hand, all civil litigation has ended against the petitioner and similarly placed persons and more so, the documents that had already relied on in the civil proceedings have alone been relied on, even in the present writ petition, despite the same, having negatived by the competent civil Court and more than one occassion. Therefore, I see absolutely no merit in the present writ petition. 25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020
24. In fine, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 09.05.2025
NCC : Yes / No
LS
TO:-
1. The District Revenue Officer
Office of the DRO,
Karur.
2. The Sub Registrar
Karur,
Karur District.
26/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020
P.B. BALAJI, J.
LS
Pre-delivery Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020
Dated:
09.05.2025
27/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:44 pm )