N. KUMAR NAICKER Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs.Kanimozhi Mathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.K.Manikkam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. The respondents 5 to 8 are private parties. Notice to them is dispensed with, because the writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage without notice to the respondents 5 to 8. The order passed in the writ petition requires to be set aside for the following reasons:

(2.) The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage on the ground that a civil suit has been filed in O.S.No.89 of 2020 by the respondents 5 to 8, which is pending before the Subordinate Court, Vedachandur and therefore, the matter has to be agitated before the civil Court. On facts we find that the suit has been filed by the respondents 5 to 8 after the appellant gave a representation for correction of the mistake, which has occured while updation of the revenue records and issuance of computer patta. In fact, hearing was fixed by issuing notice to both sides on 25.11.2019. Subsequently, the suit had been filed and the suit is only for a decree of permanent injunction.

(3.) Since the respondents 5 to 8 informed the fourth respondent about the pendency of the suit, the fourth respondent has passed the order dated 14.10.2020, directing the appellant to agitate his right before the civil Court. Thus, the question before the Writ Court was whether the suit which has been filed subsequent to the application given by the appellant for rectification of error in patta can be a bar for conducting the enquiry.