logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 118 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P. No. 49263 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Parties : Jay Prkash Lalwani Versus The District Collector, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: C. Kulanthaivel, Advocate. For the Respondents: D. Ravichander, Spl GP.
Date of Judgment : 05-01-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Opportunity of hearing
- Stakeholder
- Summons
- Enquiry
- Direction

3. Summary:
The petitioner claims denial of a hearing after being served a summons in proceedings concerning a property. He relies on a prior Civil Revision Petition order requiring all stakeholders to be heard before final orders. The respondents state no final order has been passed yet. Counsel for the Trust argues the petitioner is not a stakeholder. The Court observes that since a summons was issued, the petitioner must be allowed to participate and be heard before any determination of stakeholder status. Accordingly, the Court directs the second respondent to inform the petitioner and other stakeholders of hearing dates, permit their participation, and pass final orders within eight weeks. No opinion on merits was expressed, and the petition is disposed of without costs.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 03.12.2025.)

1. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he has not been granted any opportunity of hearing in the impugned proceedings pursuant to the receipt of summons. The petitioner also relies upon an order passed by this Court in a Civil Revision Petition (CRP) filed by Dadabadi Shree Jin Kusalsuriji Jin-Chandruriji Trust (in short “the Trust”), which makes it clear that all stakeholders will have to be heard by the Revenue Authorities before passing the final orders. The petitioner claims that he is an interested person in the property, which is the subject matter of the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondents.

2. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the summons issued to him by the first respondent along with this writ petition fixing the date of hearing. However, according to the petitioner, subsequently, the petitioner is not aware of the further developments/hearings in the proceedings initiated by the respondents.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents on instructions would submit that till date, no final orders have been passed. He also confirms that summons was issued to the petitioner in the impugned proceedings.

4. Mr.D.Ferdinand, learned counsel, representing the said Trust, would submit that the petitioner is not a stakeholder, who is entitled to participate in the impugned proceedings, before the respondents.

5. However, since the first respondent has already issued summons to the petitioner to appear before them in the impugned proceedings, necessarily, the petitioner should be allowed to participate in the impugned proceedings, and after hearing his submissions, the first respondent shall take a final decision as to whether the petitioner is a stakeholder or not; and entitled to participate in the impugned proceedings based on the orders passed by this Court in the Civil Revision Petition.

6. Mr.D.Ferdinand, learned counsel, representing the said Trust, would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondents to pass final orders, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any serious objection for issuing such a direction, provided the petitioner is allowed to participate in the impugned proceedings.

8. After recording the submissions of the respective counsels for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice will be caused to any of the parties if the following directions are issued by this Court:

                   (a) The second respondent, who is conducting an enquiry in the proceedings which resulted in the issuance of summons/notice to the petitioner, is directed to intimate the hearing dates to the petitioner and other stakeholders as directed by this Court in the Civil Revision Petition, and allow them to participate in the proceedings, and after hearing their respective submissions, pass final orders in the impugned proceedings, which is the subject matter of this writ petition.

                   (b) The second respondent is directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the respective counsels for the respective parties before this Court. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal