Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3702 (MAD)

Pappammal v. Mayandi @ Mookamayan

2018-10-10

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, T.KRISHNAVALLI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. This writ appeal is directed as against the order, dated 12.11.2013 passed in W.P. (MD) No. 18427 of 2013. 2. The appellants are the respondents 3 to 7 in the Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the proceedings of the first respondent therein in Na.Ka.No.59/13/A2, dated 13.08.2013. 3. It is submitted that when the Tahsildar, Usilampatti, had passed an order transferring patta in favour of the first respondent/writ petitioner on 16.07.2010, the appellants herein/respondents 3 to 7 have preferred an appeal before the second respondent/first respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer on 02.01.2012. 4. Pending appeal, the second respondent/first respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer had passed an order, dated 13.08.2013 that till the dispute is resolved, neither of the parties can enter into the disputed lands. This was challenged by the first respondent/writ petitioner in the Writ Petition. 5. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 12.11.2013 directed the second respondent/first respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer to take the appeal on file preferred filed by the appellants/respondents 3 to 7 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months, after issuing notice to the appellants/respondents 3 to 7. It is further stated that till the disposal of the appeal, the first respondent/writ petitioner is entitled to cultivate the land. Challenging this portion of the order, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. Since in the Writ Appeal an order of interim stay was obtained, the second respondent/first respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer is unable to proceed further with the appeal and the permission granted to the first respondent/writ petitioner to cultivate the land is stayed. 8. It is a classic example of a 'dog in the manger' policy. Under the purview of the interim orders, neither the appellants/respondents 3 to 7 nor the first respondent/writ petitioner are able to cultivate in the disputed land and the land had been lying frozen from 2012. 9. 8. It is a classic example of a 'dog in the manger' policy. Under the purview of the interim orders, neither the appellants/respondents 3 to 7 nor the first respondent/writ petitioner are able to cultivate in the disputed land and the land had been lying frozen from 2012. 9. Considering the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that the second respondent/first respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer, before whom the appeal had been preferred is pending, is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the second respondent/first respondent- the Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to issue notice to the appellants/respondents 3 to 7 and to the first respondent/writ petitioner and also to any other interested persons over the property before proceeding with the enquiry. 10. With the above directions, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.