Dismissed

N.Manoj v. District Collector

Madras HC17 Aug 2015WP/28322/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order transferring patta to respondents. It directed the pending civil suit to be disposed within 9 months and held that finality on the title/registration rights depends on the Civil Court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. A direction was issued to the District Munsif Court to dispose of the pending civil suit O.S.No.319 of 2013 within 9 months.

N.Manoj Vs District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.8.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.28322 of 2013
and
M.P.No.2 of 2013
N.MANOJ
6/57 SALEM MAIN ROAD,
MUMMUDI VILLAGE, THALAIVASAL POST,
ATTUR TALUK
SALEM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
Vs.
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
SALEM DISTRICT SALEM
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
ATTUR SALEM DISTRICT
3 TAHSILDAR
ATTUR TALUK ATTUR SALEM DISTRICT
4 R.KUPPUSAMY
S/O.RAMASAMY
5 TMT.ATHAYEE
W/O.R.KUPPUSAMY RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 MUMMUDI
VILLAGE THALAVAISAL POST ATTUR TALUK
SALEM DISTRICT
6 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
ATTUR-RURAL CIRCLE ATTUR SALEM DISTRICT

¶6

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

¶7

7 THE DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, SIPCOT HOUSING BOARD COMPLEX, HOSUR KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order of transfer of patta in favour of the respondents 4 and 5 in Patta No.1001 issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No. Nil dated Nil and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiagarajan

¶10

For Respondents-1to3 : Mr.A.Kumar, Spl.G.P. For Respondent No.4 & 5 : Mr.P.Jagadeesan O R D E R

¶11

It is seen from the records that the petitioner's name has been entered in patta based upon the settlement deed said to have been executed by the respondent No.4 and 5. It also appears that the respondent No.4 and 5 cancelled the said settlement deed on certain grounds. A challenge has been made by the petitioner by seeking a declaration that the cancellation of settlement is null and void by duly filing a civil suit in O.S.No.319 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Attur. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 changed the patta once again in the name of the respondent No.4 and 5 based upon the cancellation of settlement deed. Alleging that said action has been taken behind the back of the petitioner without affording opportunities to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶12

2 The law is quite settled that a patta issued by the revenue official is subject to decision of the Civil Court. Admittedly, petitioner has filed the comprehensive civil suit which is pending on the file of the District Munsif, Attur in O.S.No.319 of 2013. Thus, a direction is issued to the learned District Munsif Court, Attur to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.319 of 2013 within a period of 9 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While doing so, the said Court shall not make any reliance upon the patta said to have been issued in favour of the respondent No.4 and 5. Based upon the decision to be rendered by the said Court, parties are at liberty to approach the respondent No.3 for appropriate relief.

¶13

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

¶14

3 It is made clear that if right has already been accrued to the parties based upon the patta which is in existence as on today or earlier, the subsequent change of patta shall not affect them. It would depend upon the Civil Court decision. Parties are also at liberty to file appropriate application in the pending suit if so advised.

¶15

4 Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.2 of 2015 is closed.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vaan
To
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
SALEM DISTRICT SALEM
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
ATTUR SALEM DISTRICT
3 TAHSILDAR
ATTUR TALUK ATTUR SALEM DISTRICT
4 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
ATTUR RURAL CIRCLE,
ATTUR, SALEM.
5 THE DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES,
SIPCOT HOUSING BOARD COMPLEX,
HOSUR KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.
2 CCs to Mr.A.Thiagarajan, Advocate SR.No. 43091
1 CC to Mr.P.Jagadeesan, Advocate SR.No. 43196
1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No. 43462
RSI (CO)PSI (02.09.2015)

¶17

W.P.No.28322 of 2013 and M.P.No.2 of 2013

¶18

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

N.Manoj v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Manoj v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Rajendiran Vs Inspector of Police

K.M.Samiyappan Vs The Assistant Director of

B.Shanmugasundaram, Vs The Chief Manager

R.Usharani Vs the Assistant General

S.Jaganathan Vs the District Collector

D.Govindammal Vs the District Collector