Dismissed

Vellaichamy, v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC4 Sept 2014WP(MD)/13748/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a patta order. The Court held that the petitioner, having no title to the property as established by the Supreme Court in a second appeal, lacked locus standi to question the revenue authorities' proceedings in the absence of an aggrieved party.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition dismissed. No costs.

Vellaichamy, Vs the District Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.09.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.13748 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014

Vellaichamy

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai,

¶12

Sivagangai District.

¶13

3.K.Muthu

¶14

4.K.Bose .. Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in connection with the impugned order, dated 17.07.2014 in Pa.Mu.P1/17476/2013 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner ... Mr.L.Madhusudhanan

¶17

For respondents ... Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated 17.07.2014, passed by the first respondent in a patta proceedings relating to Survey No.36/8.

¶20

2.It is admitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has absolutely no right over the property as the petitioner was unsuccessful before the Civil Court. According to the petitioner, though the original suit was decreed in favour of him, in the appeal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suit the same was reversed. The second appeal filed by both the parties before this Court in Second Appeal Nos.776 of 2001 and 940

¶21

¶22

of 2002 were dismissed by this Court by a common judgment, dated 24.07.2008, as a consequence of which no right accrues to the petitioner in respect of the said property. This Court, while dismissing the appeal, held that the petitioner has not proved his title over the property. Inspite of the said judgment, the petitioner now seeks to challenge the impugned order on the ground that the patta has been granted in the name of wrong persons. When the petitioner has no right over the property, the petitioner would have no locus standi to question the impugned proceedings. However, it is always open to any party, who is aggrieved, to question the impugned order in the manner known to law.

¶23

3.With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.

¶24

Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶28

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶29

+One cc to Mr.L.Madhusudhanan, Advocate, SR.No.50408

¶30

gcg

¶31

RL/4 c- 19/9/2014

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.13748 of 2014

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

04.09.2014

Vellaichamy, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vellaichamy, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tmt.S. Kasthuri, Vs the Senior Divisional Retail

Kasi Reddiyar Vs the Panchayat President

Gopal, Vs the District Collector

M. Balasubramanian Vs the District Revenue Officer

S.Karthikeyan Vs the Branch Manager

K.Sampath, Vs the Member Secretary