IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.31737 of 2007 & M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2007 M.Dhakshinamoorthi .. Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District. 2.The Tahsildar Tiruvannamalai Taluk. 3.The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Vetavalam Tiruvannamalai Taluk & District. 4.The Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvannamalai Taluk & Disrict. 5.Sri Arulmigu Angala Parameswari Temple rep. by its Managing Trustee, Mr.Krishnamoorthy. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records comprised in OMA No.1.7800/2007, dated 10.07.2007, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.Thirugnanam for R3 Mrs.Dhakshiyaini Reddy Special Government Pleader (Edn) for R4 Ms.Asha for Ms.Sarvabhuman Associates for R5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Though the miscellaneous petitions are listed today, by consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the second respondent, Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai District by his proceedings in OMA 1.7800/2007, dated 10.07.2007, wherein he has issued a direction restraining any construction of school building in S.No.227/150 at Vetavalam Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District. 3. The facts of the case are as follows; The petitioner is the President of the Village Education Committee and he also incidentally happens to be the councilor of the 11th ward of Vetavalam Village. There appears to be a move to construct an additional building for the local school in the land comprised in S.No.227/150 at the same Village. It seems that the fifth respondent, who is the Managing Trustee of Sri Arulmigu Angala Parameswari Temple, has claimed that the said property belongs to the temple and he has objected to the construction of the school building. Based on the same, the Tahsildar has issued the impugned order restraining the authorities from making such construction. It is the said order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Heard Mr.R.Karthikeyan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Arun, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.Thirugnanam learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, Mrs.Dhakshiyaini Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing for the fourth respondent and Ms.Asha learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and also perused the records. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that it is not an order passed under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent that there is a civil suit pending before the learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.394 of 2007 filed by the fifth respondent against the educational authorities seeking for a permanent injunction to restrain them from making any construction on the said land. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent further submitted that the learned District Munsif, has granted an interim order of injunction in favour of the fifth respondent. When that be so, according to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, the petitioner cannot make any construction of school building on the said property, which is the subject matter of the suit and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, the impugned order is sustainable under law; therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I am not able https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to agree with the said argument of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent. Firstly the interim order said to have been granted by the learned District Munsif is not before this Court. Assuming that there is such an order of injunction granted in favour of the fifth respondent, if the fifth respondent feels that there is any actual violation of the order of injunction, it is always open for him to work out his remedy before the learned District Munsif. When the matter is pending before the learned District Munsif, the Tahsildar has neither any power nor any authority to pass an order like the impugned order. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that this order came to be passed before filing of the civil suit. Assuming the same to be correct, even then the Tahsildar cannot pass such kind of order which is highly arbitrary. The Tahsildar has got statutory power under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which requires other legal formalities to be complied with. The learned Additional Government Pleader would fairly concede that the order impugned has not been passed in exercise of the statutory power under Criminal Procedure Code. The impugned order is, thus, without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. It is made clear that if it is the case of the fifth respondent that the fifth respondent is the owner of the land and the educational authorities have no right to make any construction of School buildings, he can very well work out his remedy where the civil suit is pending. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. jikr To 1.The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District. 2.The Tahsildar Tiruvannamalai Taluk. 3.The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Vetavalam Tiruvannamalai Taluk & District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvannamalai Taluk & Disrict. + 2 CCs To Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Advocate SR NO.39560, 39762 + 2 CCs To The Government Pleader, SR NOs.39355 and 39370 + 1 CC To M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocate SR NO.39326 W.P.No.31737 of 2007 GR(CO) SRA(31/07/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/