Partly allowed

S.Jeyakumar v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC14 Dec 2016WP(MD)/18531/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a revenue order removing names from a patta during a pending title dispute in a second appeal. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed parties to maintain the status quo until the appeal's disposal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by directing parties to maintain status quo in patta proceedings until the final disposal of the pending second appeal. Order made with liberty to apply for early hea

S.Jeyakumar Vs the District Revenue Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.12.2016 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶4

W.P(MD)No.18531 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)Nos13425 and 16748 of 2016

¶5

1.S.Jeyakumar

¶6

2.Ugine Napolean Jacob

¶7

3.B.A.Issac .. Petitioners

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶10

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin,

Tuticorin District.

3.The Tahsildar,

Taluk office,

Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶15

4.Thulasiammal ..Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : 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 impugned order of 1^st Respondent herein dated 26.12.2015 made in Na.Ka.D3/19407/2014 and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.Gokul Raj for Mr.R.Vijayakumar

¶18

For R1 to R3 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.L.Rajiah

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 26.12.2015 arising out patta proceedings.

¶23

2.Perusal of the impugned order would show that the first respondent has directed the removal of names found in subject matter patta and include the name of the fourth respondent herein.

¶24

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that when a civil suit is pending between the parties, which culminated into a second appeal before this Court in S.A(MD)No.202 of 2015, the first respondent ought not to have passed the present impugned order having noted the pendency of the above second appeal in the impugned order itself.

¶25

4.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that there is no impediment for the first respondent to effect the change in the patta in the absence of any interim order granted in the second appeal. But the fact remains that the second appeal, dealing with the title to the properties between the parties, is admittedly pending before this Court in S.A.No.202 of 2015. Therefore, the title dispute has to be decided in the said appeal and any order passed by the revenue authorities in respect of the patta proceedings is always subject to the result of the said second appeal. Therefore, I am of the view that the parties have to agitate their respective rights in the said second appeal and get it disposed of at an early date. Till such time, both parties have to maintain status quo as on today without precipitating the matter further.

¶26

5.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the parties to the proceedings to maintain status quo as on today in respect of the patta proceedings, till the finality is arrived in the above second appeal. It is open to the either parties to make an application for fixing an early date for the said second appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(writs)

¶29

/TRUE COPY/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

To, 1.The District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. 3.The Tahsildar, Taluk office, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. +1cc to Mr.R.Vijayakumar,Advocate,SR NO:81117 +1cc to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SR NO:80879

¶34

SKN RL/SKN/05-01-2017/3P/6C W.P(MD)No.18531 of 2016 14.12.2016

¶35

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

S.Jeyakumar v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jeyakumar 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

S. Arumugam Vs the District Collector

U.Palanisamy Vs the Member Secretary

M. Lakshmi, Vs the Special Deputy

S. Rathika, Vs the District Collector

S.Sivalingam, Vs the Commissioner

Dr.P.Rathakrishnan Nair, Vs the Secretary to the Govt.