Petitioner challenged a patta granted to a fifth respondent alleging forgery. The Court held that directing the Tahsildar to enquire into forgery would confer civil court jurisdiction on revenue officers. Petitioner directed to seek relief in civil court.
Petitioner directed to approach civil court for relief; writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 02.9.2014
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Writ Petition No.23627 of 2014 and MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
Mr.T.U.Vijayagopal, Manager V.G.P.Beach Housing ...Petitioner
Vs 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, Revenue Division, Tambaram, Kanchipuram District,Chennai.
2.The Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk Sholinganallur, Kanchipuram District. 3.The Deputy Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk, Sholinganallur, Kanchipuram Dist.
4.The Head Surveyor, Sholinganallur Taluk, Sholinganallur, Kanchipuram Dist. 5.Mrs.Akila 6.K.S.Vijendiran 7.The Sub-Registrar, Neelangarai Kancheepuram District. ...Respondents
PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the file of the 2nd and 3rd respondents pertaining to patta No.4062 issued in favour of the 5th respondent on 30.7.2013, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to restore the patta entries pertaining to lands comprised in Survey Nos.10/1A and 10/2 Solinganallur-II Village, Solinganallur Taluk, Chennai infavour of M/s.VGP Beach Housing.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhakaran For Respondents 1 to 4 & 7 : Mr.P.Govindasamy, AGP ORDER
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the patta granted by the respondents 2 and 3 in favour of the fifth respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to restore the patta that stood in the name of the petitioner.
Sd/Asst. Registrar(CS IV) Dt.10/09/14
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
To
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct a Tahsildar to enquire into allegations of forgery and determine document authenticity.
Whether the issuer of a forged pattamissed is competent to quash it or if only a civil court has such jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vishwas Footwear Company Limited Vs. The District Collector, KancheepuramReferred¶15
Vishwas Footwear Company Limited Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram {2011 (5) CTC 94}
C.Sabesan Chettiar Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore DistrictReferred¶15
C.Sabesan Chettiar Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District {2011 (5) CTC 241}
T.U.Vijayagopal
Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram
Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk
Deputy Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk
Head Surveyor, Sholinganallur Taluk
Mrs.Akila
V. Ramasubramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
