A writ petition praying for quashing of a revenue officer order and directing issuance of patta was disposed of when parties conceded the ownership dispute required determination by the civil court, leading to the impugned order being set aside.
Impugned order set aside; liberty granted to resolve dispute before competent civil court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.1566 of 2013
Both represented by their
Power of Attorney G.Haridhos .. Petitioners
-vs-
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.610/2009/AA2 dated 6.9.2010 modified by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.3658/2010/AA dated 23.8.2012, quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to issue patta to the petitioner in respect of their lands comprised in Survey No.50/1A3A, comprised in Plot Nos.51, 52 and 53 totally admeasuring 17 Cents, Ayyanchery Village, Ambika Nagar, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
For Petitioners :: Mr.S.Ramesh For Respondents :: Mr.E.Balamurugan Special Government Pleader for R1 & 2 Mrs.Selvi Rajesh for R3 Mr.V.B.Thirupathikumar for R4
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
fourth respondents is as to who is the owner of the land covered in Survey No.50/1, which is said to have been subsequently subdivided as Survey Nos.50/1A, 50/1A2 & 50/1A3 in Ayyanchery Village, Chengalpet Taluk. This issue has not been decided by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpet, the first respondent herein while setting aside the order dated 6.9.2010 passed by the Tahsildar, Chengalpet, the second respondent herein. The Tahsildar, Chengalpet, by order dated 6.9.2010, while appreciating the complex and disputed issue raised by the petitioners on the one hand and that of the second and third respondents on the other hand in respect of the land in question, has rightly advised the parties to approach the competent civil Court to resolve their issue. When the said order was taken on appeal before the first respondent by the petitioners and the third respondent, it is pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first respondent, while answering the issue raised by the third respondent, has not answered the issue raised by the petitioners. Therefore, the parties should resolve the issue before the civil Court. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent also stated that when the issue is to find out the owner of the land covered in Survey No.50/1, which has been sub-divided subsequently, the order passed by the Tahsildar directing the parties to approach the civil Court should not have been disturbed. As it has been cancelled by the first respondent, the impugned order has to go and the parties, as advised by the Tahsildar, should approach the civil Court to resolve the issue.
Assistant Registrar (CS-VI) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ss
To
+1cc to Mr.S.Ramesh, Advocate, S.R.No. 92247
+1cc to Mr.P.Rajesh, Advocate, S.R.No. 92931
+2cc to Mr.V.B.Thirupathi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 93215
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 93062
W.P.No.1566 of 2013
PA(CO)
GN(20/12/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer should have determined the ownership of the disputed land or referred the matter to the civil court.
Whether the impugned order directing parties to approach the civil court should be quashed.
G.V.Raghavan
G.V.Venugopal
The Revenue Divisional Officer Chengalpet Taluk
The Tahsildar Chengalpet Taluk
S.M.Murugappan
Mrs.Sabitha Devi
T. Raja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
