# JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN. Archives

Title: A. Rajinikanth Vs. Secretary to Government School Education Department.

Decided On: September 14, 2023.

WP.No.10601/2018.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan.

Facts:

The petitioner was working as Assistant in the Government Higher Secondary School, Olakkur in Tindivanam, Villupuram District, from 21.04.2014. He was earlier working in the office of the District Educational Officer, Tindivanam. At that time, a case was registered against him by the District Crime Branch, Villupuram in Crime No.74/2011 alleging that along with the other accused, the petitioner had helped the 1st accused therein to copy during the 10^th standard public examination and complete his examination successfully. It was therefore alleged that the petitioner and the other accused committed offences under Sections 468, 471, 120[B], 201 read with 34 of IPC. The petitioner had been suspended from service on 08.10.2011. A charge memo was issued on 01.02.2012. An enquiry was conducted and during the enquiry, the charges were held to be established by an order dated 28.01.2015. The petitioner gave a subsequent explanation on 19.05.2015 to the Director and Joint Director of School Education. The criminal case which had been registered against the petitioner herein, ended in acquittal in Crl.A.No.18/2013 in a judgment dated 24.07.2013 by the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tindivanam.

The order of suspension was revoked by an order of this Court in WP.No.29013/2013 dated 25.10.2013. The petitioner was then reappointed to service after he had filed a contempt petition. The petitioner had also filed WP.No.37079/2016 calling upon the respondents to expedite the enquiry. Orders in that regard were also passed. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal questioning the findings of the Enquiry Officer before the 2nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent had rejected the appeal and had confirmed the order of the 3^rd respondent / Disciplinary Authority of imposing the punishment of stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect. Questioning that particular order, the present writ petition has been filed.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The Enquiry Officer had recorded the statements of two witnesses. As a matter of fact, it is stated that the witnesses were not examined in person, but their statements alone were taken on record. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross examine both the said witnesses. The petitioner had also given a request for examining a witness on his side. That was also not considered by the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, when the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority / 2^nd respondent herein, he had again raised the same issues of procedural violations during the enquiry, namely, denial of opportunity to cross examine the witnesses summoned on behalf of the respondents and also denial of opportunity to examine the witness on his side.

The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent, Director of School Education, who may re-examine the entire issue, examine the records once again and specifically find out whether the petitioner had placed a request for opportunity to cross examine the two witnesses whose statements had been taken on record by the Enquiry Officer and if that opportunity had been denied, examine whether necessary reasons have been given by the Enquiry Officer for denial of such opportunity. The 2nd respondent may also examine whether the petitioner had placed a request for examining any witness on his side and also examine whether the Enquiry Officer had applied his mind to either accepting such request or rejecting such request and whether reasons had been given for rejection. The 2nd respondent may realise that he, as the Appellate Authority, has, not only the responsibility to look into the punishment aspect which has been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, but more importantly, also has the responsibility to examine whether there had been procedural violations committed by the Enquiry Officer.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the matter is remitted back to the Director of School Education, to re-examine the entire issue and pass necessary orders within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The punishment may be kept in abeyance and while reconsidering the entire issue, the Director of School Education may also pass an
order relating to the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

Case Title: Sulthan Beevi. … Petitioner
Versus

The Director of Town and Country Planning and Anrs … Respondents

Date of Decision: Pronounced On 27.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN.

Citation: W.P(MD)No.1770 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.1557 & 1558 of 2022.

Introduction:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to Na.Ka.No.2752/2020 TN2, dated 12.11.2021 granting technical approval vide Ko.O.Ma.Va/Na.Vuu.Vu.E (Tha.Maa) No.37/2021 to regularize the unapproved layout called “IBN BATTUTA CITY” formed by the respondents 5 and 6 and quash the same in so far as the lands comprised in SR.Nos.376/1B, 376/2 and 376/4B to an total extent of 50 cents in Soolamangalam 2- Sethi Revenue Village, Ayyampettai Town Panchayat, Thanjavur District.

Facts:

The petitioner had claimed that the property aforementioned belong to her grandfather Meeran Mydeen. During his life time, he had allotted the property to his 4 sons by executing four different registered settlement deeds. The petitioner’s father, Mohammed Ismail, stood benefited to the properties aforementioned measuring 50 cents in Survey Nos.376/1B,
376/2 and 376/4B in Soolamangalam 2 – Sethi Revenue Village, Ayyampetti Town Panchayat, by a settlement deed, dated 26.10.1997, registered as document No.1022 of 1977 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Ayyampetti.
The petitioner further stated that her father died intestate on 04.03.1992 leaving behind her mother and two other brothers of the petitioner. One of the brother died and the mother had also died. The petitioner claimed that she is in possession along with the other brother, but who however, is now abroad. The petition claimed that she is therefore, directly interested in the lands aforementioned and she came to know that the respondents 5 and 6 had formed a layout of a large area of the property, including the property aforementioned. Claiming that her property had been unlawfully included in the layout, the Writ Petition has been filed seeking interfernce with the order granting such approval of the lay out.

Issues:

If the grand father had settled excess lands, then what he was allotted in the partition deed, then the issue of title itself must be adjudicated?
Whether the Writ Court can adjudicate the issues on the basis of documents?

Legal Analysis:

The petitioner claims that the approval granted for the lay out bit “IBN BATTUTA CITY” in Soolamangalam 2 – Sethi Revenue Village, Ayyampetti Town Panchayat, Thanjavur District, by the respondents 1 and 2 should be interefered with, since she claimed title to
50 cents of lands in Survey Nos.376/1, 376/2 and 376/4. The flow of title for the said lands is not direct but rather had taken various turns and twist. The lands originally belonged to the
grand father of the petitioner and his brother Abdul Khader. They had entered into a parition deed. By the partition, the grand father was allotted portions of land in each one of the survey numbers. If he where to deal with the lands subsequently, by a further settlement deeds
infavour of his sons, then he could do so only with respect to the lands which had been allotted to him under the partition deed.
But a perusal of the record shows that he had dealt with excess land. Once this fact stares in the face of the petitioner, the petitioner should institute a suit seeking a relief to divide the lands, to demarcate the lands, to identify the lands and to partition the lands and to sub-divide the lands. Without a suit for declaration of title, as against her own paternal uncle since there has been a overlapping of lands in the four separate settlement deeds executed by the paternal grand father, the petitioner can never claim exclusive title for 50 cents of lands in the
aforementioned 3 survey numbers. She can claim joint title, but it is only with her brother who is surviving, and more importantly with the legal heirs of with her paternal uncles as there has been four separate settlement deeds executed by her grand father.

The records reveal that the paternal grand father of the petitioner had settled 24 cents of land in excess in survey No.376/1 in favour of his 4 sons. He had similarly, settled 21 cents of land in excess in Survey No.376/4. These facts may be right. These facts may be wrong, but the only forum to test these facts is the Civil Court where the settlement deeds will have to be put to test and marked as documents and will have to pass the test of admissibility, of proof and of being relevant. The partition deed will have to be examined. The schedule of the lands
in the partition deed between her grand father and his brother will have to be examined. Thereafter, the lands which was allotted to her grand father will have to be crystalized. Thereafter, the four settlement deeds executed by the grand father will have to be examined. The lands settled will have to be identified and finally the lands settled to the father of the
petitioner herein will have to be identified. If the grand father had settled excess lands, then what he was allotted in the partition deed, then the issue of title itself must be adjudicated. That would be a question to be adjudicated not between the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6, but between the petitioner and her paternal uncles who were the beneficiaries of the settlement deeds executed by her grand father. Without there being a proper demarcation of lands, there can never be an adjudication in this Writ Petition on the basis of an affidavit.

Judgement:

It is thus seen that the petitioner will necessarily have to approach the Civil Court, seek necessary relief, to identify the lands and then, question the approval if the lands are identified and if they fall within the lands for which lay out was approved in favour of the
respondents 5 and 6. Without that preliminary examination of title, of possession and of demarcation of lands, this Court never can adjudicate on the issue raised by the petitioner. I cannot grant any relief to the petitioner herein. The petitioner should put the horse before the cart. She should first institute a suit, identify her lands and then question the approval order, if the lands fall within the approval granted for the lay out formed by the respondents 5 and 6. She cannot approch the Writ Court first and seek an order. The Writ Court can never adjudicate the issues on the basis of documents.

Conclusion:

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

Madras High Court remits back the case to the Director of School Education, to re-examine the entire issue and pass necessary orders.

The Writ Court can never adjudicate the issues on the basis of documents Says Madras High Court.