G.GOPAL PILLAI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal is by the petitioner whose writ came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the order dated 7.8.2018 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, which according to the appellant/petitioner was an order passed without appreciating the fact that the dispute related to the identity of the land that had to be adjudicated only through a civil suit as per the order of the High Court dated 10.03.2015 and then culminating in the judgment of the Civil Court dated 30.06.2016.

(2.) The appellant/petitioner contends that in the background aforesaid, an order of re-survey of the land by the District Revenue Officer on the representation of the contesting respondent No.7 clearly amounted to an abuse of process that was attempted by respondent No.7 and in which he succeeded to obtain the order impugned in connivance with the District Revenue Officer. The contention is that the learned Single Judge, in spite of having noticed these facts and having noticed the dispute with regard to the identity of the land, refused to interfere with the order of the District Revenue Officer, which clearly amounted to conferring the jurisdiction on the revenue authorities to adjudicate on the identity of the land that had already reached the Civil Court and the suit had been dismissed. The learned Single Judge also overlooked the fact that a writ petition had been filed before this Court being W.P.No.8682 of 2012 and the interim order passed therein came to be vacated on the ground that the order dated 25.1.2006 that had been passed was already a subject matter of a suit in which the plaintiff was late Muralidharan on whose behalf Power of Attorney was being held by respondent No.7, which suit was ultimately dismissed.

(3.) It is, therefore, submitted that once the predecessor of the contesting respondent had been declined indulgence by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the civil suit is pending, then the same principle should apply when the suit filed by him was ultimately dismissed and therefore, the approach made to the District Revenue Officer by the respondent No.7, who is the power of attorney holder of Muralidharan through a representation was not only an abuse of process of seeking redressal, but was rather trying to circumvent the finality attached to the proceedings in the background aforesaid. The reopening of the issue before the District Revenue Officer, therefore, ought to have been set aside by the learned Single Judge and having failed to exercise jurisdiction, the prayer is to set aside the impugned judgment as well as the order passed by the District Revenue Officer dated 7.8.2018 to enable the parties to seek their remedy in the appeal filed against the dismissal of the suit which is stated to be still pending.