Allowed

T.S. Ramachandra Marthandan, v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC10 Nov 2016WP(MD)/10997/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court set aside a non-speaking revision order directing re-enquiry into land title, passed without notice to the petitioner. The Bench directed the District Revenue Officer to dispose of the revision on merits within 12 weeks after giving notice to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; 1st respondent directed to dispose of revision on merits giving notice to petitioner and 3rd respondent within 12 weeks.

T.S. Ramachandra Marthandan, Vs the District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.11.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶3

W.P(MD)No.10997 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶4

T.S.Ramachandra Marthandan

¶5

¶6

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli.

¶7

2.The Appellate Authority-cumSub Collector, Cheranmadevi.

¶8

3.Suyamburaj Marthandan .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent in ref. Na.Ka. (B2) 56/2011 dated 14.07.2011 and quash the same in so far as directing re-enquiry by the 2^nd respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : No Appearance

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar (for R1 & R2) Government Advocate Mr.D.Nallathambi (for R3)

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, or order to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent in ref.Na.Ka (B2) 56/2011 dated 14.07.2011 and quash the same in so far as directing re-enquiry by the 2^nd respondent.

¶14

2.There was no appearance for the petitioner and heard Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.D.Nallathambi, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶15

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

¶16

3.The case of the petitioner is that he and his brother Thiru.T.S.Udayachandra Marthandam jointly own some stretch of

¶17

¶18

property in S.No.65/1 measuring 0.70.0 hectares and 0.73.0 hectares in S.No.65/2 in Kuttam Village, Tirunelveli. The corresponding pattas were issued in Patta numbers 1523 and 194 respectively. The joint patta has been issued by the Thasildar, Radhapuram vide DRT No. 773/88.

¶19

4.It is stated that originally a stretch of property measuring 3.55 acres as a whole was purchased by his grandfather; vide Doc.No.155/1910 and 4024/1919. On partition about 89 cents came to be allotted as the share of the petitioner's father, vide Doc no.3913/1942. Subsequently, about 89 cents and 30 cents were relinquished in favour of the petitioner's father, by the grandfather and the brother of the petitioner in the year 1956 and 1975 vide Doc No.1907/1956 and doc No.152/1975. Totally in S.No.65, the petitioner hold 2.69 acre. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that several transactions viz. lease, mortgage was effected in the year 1963,1966,1968 by the petitioner's father during his life time. The UDR patta proceeding and the sub-division was made in the name of the petitioner and all the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner.

¶20

5.It is further stated that in the meanwhile without any documentary evidence and Title Deeds, the 3^rd respondent herein made an application praying for issuance of patta for the above said properties before the Tahsildar, Radhapuram. The said application was rejected by the Tahsildar by an order dated 25.10.2005 by holding that neither any documents nor title deed nor any proof of possession produced by the 3^rd respondent. Aggrieved over the same appeal was filed before the 2^nd respondent herein and the 2^nd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/12947/2008 was pleased to reject the 3^rd respondent's application as untenable and was not supported by any document.

¶21

6.Aggrieved over the order made in appeal by the 2^nd respondent herein, a revision was filed by the 3^rd respondent before the 1^st respondent. Whereby the 1^st respondent vide the impugned order in this Writ Petition, set aside the order made in the appeal and directed the Tasildhar, Radhapuram to conduct a reenquiry and thereby remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The said order of remand is passed without notice to the petitioner herein and the same is impugned in the Writ Petition.

¶22

7.I have gone through the affidavit and the typed set of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ papers filed in this Writ Petition. It is found at outset that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, setting aside the order of the 2^nd respondent and directing the Thasildar, Radhapuram to look

¶23

¶24

into the issue and conduct re-enquiry provided that if the revision petitioner files any application and document in support of his claim.

¶25

8.This court feels that such an order is sheer nonspeaking, passed without application of mind and without appreciation of documents/ revenue records. It is found from the order of the 2^nd respondent holding that the claim of the 3^rd respondent is untenable, without submission of any documents. It is further found from the order of the 2^nd respondent that the order came to be passed only on the basis of the Report and revenue records submitted by Thasildar, Radhapuram. Furthermore, the 3^rd respondent despite of sufficient time provided by the 2^nd respondent to submit the documents/ records to substantiate his claim, he has not submitted any documents. The 2^nd respondent having found that the encumbrance certificate for more than several decades reflect the name of the petitioner and several other transactions over the property was also made by the petitioner’s father, has rejected the claim of the petitioner.

¶26

9.It is also notable that the 3^rd respondent, so as to prolong the matter has also involved misrepresentation of facts before the revenue officials.

¶27

10.In the light of the above discussions, this court find that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, since the same is a non-speaking order, as well as the same is passed without notice to the petitioner. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the 1^st respondent is directed to dispose of the revision petition on merits and in accordance with law, it is needless to say that after giving due notice to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent as well and the said exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶28

11.This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶31

/True copy/

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

¶36

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli.

¶37

2.The Appellate Authority-cumSub Collector, Cheranmadevi.

¶38

+1cc to M/S.D.Nallathambi,Advocate,SR.No.67898

¶39

+1cc to M/S THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.NO. 67943

¶40

W.P(MD)No.10997 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 10.11.2016

¶41

VSA/SKN

¶42

KK/RSK/SAR3-15.06.2017-4P-5C

¶43

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

T.S. Ramachandra Marthandan, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S. Ramachandra Marthandan, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Subbaiah Vs the Commissioner

Tamilselvi, W/O.K.P.Muthaiah, Vs the District Collector

Tvl. Nataraj Oil Mills (P) Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.

Manju P.Bhattathiri, Vs the Government of Tami Nadu

K.Somasundaram Vs S.Sundaramoorthy

R. Muruganantham, Vs the Director of Medical