Allowed

M.Subramanian(Died) v. M.Ayyakannu

Madras HC17 Aug 2017WP/9437/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash an order directing a joint patta issue. Relying on a prior judgment establishing individual ownership, the Court set aside the revenue authority's order and directed the issuance of an individual patta.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28-9-2003 set aside; directions issued to authorities to grant individual patta to the petitioner/heirs within 45 days.

M.Subramanian(Died) Vs M.Ayyakannu — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 17.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.9437 of 2004 & W.P.M.P.No.11011 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.1316 of 2004

¶6

M.Subramanian (Died) 2.S.Arukkani 3.S.Periyasamy 4.D.Banumathy 5.I.Lakshmi (Petitioners 2 to 5 are substituted as L.R's of Deceased P1:M.Subramanian as per order dated 24.07.2017 in W.M.P.No.19851/2017 in W.P.No.9437/2004.) .. Petitioners Vs 1.M.Ayyakannu 2.Kannan

¶7

3.The Tahsildar, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

¶8

4.The District Revenue Divisional Offficer, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

¶9

5.The District Revenue Officer, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

¶10

6.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. .... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the sixth respondent relating to its order dated 28-9-2003 passed in Na.Ka.No.G1/52080/99 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶12

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

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kadarkarai for Mr.V.Radhakrishnan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.Senthilmurugan for R1 & R2. Mr.Akhil lAkbar Ali, Government

¶15

Advocate, for R3 to R6.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The writ petitioner (since deceased and legal heirs are brought on record as petitioners 2 to 5, vide order dated 24.07.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.19851 of 2017), has come forwarded with this writ petition praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the sixth respondent relating to its order dated 28-9-2003 passed in Na.Ka.No.G1/52080/99 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶18

The writ petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.09.2003 of the sixth respondent holding that the that the petitioner has a joint property and that the patta cannot issued independently. According to the petitioner, the lis between the parties has to be decided only by the Civil court and that the sixth Respondent has no jurisdiction to decide the disputed questions of fact, much less the title to the property. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the 6^th respondent is contrary to law and needs to be interfered with.

¶19

The first and second respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the Revenue officials have inspected the property and found that it is in joint possession and that only after taking note of the objections and inspection, joint patta has been issued. The contention that the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, namely the 6^th respondent has no jurisdiction to render a finding may not be correct, as the Tahsildhar is the competent authority to issue patta and if the petitioner has got any grievance, he has got a right to file an appeal and while deciding the issue in question, naturally the authority will have to see as to whom the property belongs to.

¶20

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that the Tahsildar is empowered to issue patta either individually or jointly, but it is based on undisputed document and he has got jurisdiction to do so and he cannot decide the lis between the parties as to who is the owner of the property. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and injunction and he is the owner of the property that he shall not be disturbed, was ultimately decided in his favour in Second Appeal No.1116 of

¶21

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

¶22

1999 before this court on 26.03.2012 and that declaration has been rendered in his favour and the order passed by the 6^th respondent issuing joint patta has got to go and individual patta needs to be issued by the 6^th respondent in favour of the petitioner.

¶23

Taking note of the fact that the disputed questions have been decided by this Court in favour of the petitioner (since deceased and legal heirs of the deceased petitioner have been brought on record pending Writ Petition) in the above Second Appeal No.1116 of 1999 on granting declaration and interim injunction in favour of the petitioner, the order impugned is liable to be interfered with and the same is accordingly set aside. The authority concerned ought to have issued individual patta in favour of the original petitioner. Taking note of the Judgement and decree in the above said Second Appeal, the authority is bound to issue individual patta in the name of original Writ petitioner. As the original petitioner is no more, the legal heirs are entitled to joint patta and the authorities cannot issue individual patta in the name of the legal heir unless the property is settled in favour of one of the legal heirs either by Release Deed or by means of any other valid transfer of property in the name of one person. The exercise shall be completed within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

The Writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS VIII) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar

¶26

mfa

¶27

To 1.The Tahsildar, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

¶28

2.The District Revenue Divisional Offficer, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

¶29

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

¶30

3.The District Revenue Officer, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

¶31

4.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶32

+1cc to mr.R.Ananda Kumar,Advocate sr.59000

¶33

W.P.No.9437 of 2004
vgII(co)
ss(12/9/2017)

¶34

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

M.Subramanian(Died) v. M.Ayyakannu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Subramanian(Died) v. M.Ayyakannu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Arulselvan Vs District Collector

Jagadammal (Deceased) Vs Munusamy.

S.Dhanapalan, Vs the Commissioner

E.Syed Hussain, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

V.Srijayanthi, Vs Union of India

Sri Devi Enterprises Rep. Vs the Secretary Highways Dept