IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:6.12.2007 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No. 8307 of 1999 K.Sekar .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Coonoor 2.The Tahsildar Coonoor 3.V.Laxmi .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, the Tahsildar, coonoor in Nee-Mu.14484/98 dated 20.11.1998 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent the Tahsildar, Coonoor, to take action for handing over of the jewels to the petitioner. For petitioner :Mr.V.Nicholas For respondents :Mr.V.Manoharan, G.A.-R1 & R2 Mr.C.R.Prasanan - R3 O R D E R Heard Mr.V.Nicholas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.C.R.Prasanan, learned counsel for the third respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the second respondent, the Tahsildar, Coonoor, Nee-Mu.14484/98, dated 20.11.1998, and to direct the second respondent, to take action for handing over of the pledged jewels to the petitioner. 3.It is stated by the petitioner that he had pledged gold jewels weighing 21 sovereigns with the third respondent in the year 1979. When the petitioner wanted to redeem the jewels, the third respondent declined to return the jewels pledged by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had lodged a complaint with the local police at Coonoor. During the enquiry, the third respondent had agreed to return the jewels weighing 14 sovereigns, out of the 21 sovereigns pledged, after adjusting seven sovereigns towards the principal amount and the borrowed interest therein. Accordingly, the third respondent had executed a receipt to return 11 sovereigns on 30.12.1981 and three sovereigns on 20.1.1982. 4.After the Government of Tamil Nadu had enacted the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1982, the petitioner had presented the application to the Tahsildar, under section 5(1) of the said Act, as amended by the Tamil lNadu Act 1 of 1984, for the return of the jewels pledged by the petitioner with the third respondent. After making an enquiry, the Tahsildar (D.R.) Coonoor Division, had passed an order in DR (C)1/84, dated 31.5.1984, directing the third respondent to return the jewels to the petitioner. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the third respondent before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor. 5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor, by his order Rc.B.No.16478/84, dated 10.12.1984, confirmed the order of the Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal filed by the third respondent. Against the said orders, the third respondent had filed W.P.No.3759 of 1985 before this Court and this Court by an order, dated 10.7.1995, partly allowed the writ petition by quashing the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor, dated 10.12.1984, and remitted back the matter to him for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the Sub Collection of Coonoor after making an enquiry, passed an order in Rc.A.3.No.8617/95, dated 29.3.1996, holding that the petitioner is entitled to the relief, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1982. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.Since the third respondent had not challenged the said order, it had become final. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, the second respondent herein to implement the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Coonoor, dated 29.3.1996. However, the second respondent, by the impugned order, dated 20.11.1998, had stated that the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court to recover the jewels as it involves disputed questions of fact. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 7.At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent had placed before this Court a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in E.RANGARAJU Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUCHIRAPALLI, reported in AIR 1983 MADRAS 71, wherein it has been held that a dispute as to the existence of a pledge is determinable not by the Tahsildar, but only by a Civil Court by way of a regular Suit. 8.Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 20.11.1998. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law, if he is so advised. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. rpa Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor 2.The Tahsildar, Coonoor One cc to Govt Pleader SR 72498 • One cc to Mr. V. Niocholar, Advocate SR 72198 • One cc to Mr. C.R. Prasanan, Advocate SR 72203 BK (co) sg 21/01/08 Writ Petition No. 8307 of 1999 6.12.2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/