Allowed

Chandra Bakiyalakshmi v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC22 Feb 2019WP(MD)/18813/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed the Writ petition seeking quashing of an order granting Patta mutation to the second respondent. The court set aside the Revenue order solely because the second respondent had already lost her civil suit against the petitioner regarding the same property.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the District Revenue Officer allowing mutation of Patta in favour of the second respondent was set aside.

Chandra Bakiyalakshmi Vs the District Revenue… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.02.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.18813 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16664, 16665 & 19701 of 2018

¶5

Chandra Bakiyalakshmi ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The District Revenue Officer,

¶8

Madurai.

¶9

Vijaya ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Writ petition is 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 first respondent in Na.Ka.No.G2/89476/07 dated 02.02.2018 quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioners: Mr.C.Jegannathan,

¶12

for M/s.Veera Associates. For R-1 : Mr.R.Sethuraman, Special Government Pleader. For R-2 : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham O R D E R

¶13

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶14

It is not in dispute that the second respondent herein filed O.S.No.531 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai, seeking the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The petitioner herein figured as the sixth respondent in the said suit. The suit was dismissed on 24.11.2015. Challenging the dismissal of the suit, the second respondent herein has filed A.S.No.7 of 2016 before the District Court, Madurai and it is still pending. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent states that an interim order of Status Quo has been passed in the first appeal.

¶15

It is again not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit proceedings, the second respondent herein filed an application some time in the year 2010 before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, for mutation of Patta in her favour. The property covered in the aforesaid suit and the subject matter of the application before the first respondent is one and the same. The first respondent by order dated 02.02.2018 allowed the application filed by the second respondent herein and directed mutation of Patta in respect of Survey No.29/8A3 measuring 0.09.5 ares on the western https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ side in favour of the second respondent. This order passed by the first respondent is questioned in this Writ petition.

¶16

¶17

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶18

The second respondent who lost before the civil Court in her suit filed against the Writ petitioner cannot obviously succeed before the Revenue authority. On this sole ground, the order impugned in this Writ petition stands set aside. However, it is made clear that the respective rights of the parties would abide by the outcome of A.S.No.7 of 2016 pending on the file of the District Court, Madurai. If the second respondent succeeds in the said first appeal, it is always open to the second respondent to renew her application before the first respondent who shall pass orders based on the outcome of the said first appeal.

¶19

With this observation and liberty to the second respondent, the Writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

The District Revenue Officer, Madurai.

¶25

+1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.49529 +1cc to Mr.S.Palanivelayutham ,Advocate, SR.No.49723 +1cc to M/s.M/s.Veera Associates,Advocate, SR.No.49468

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.18813 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16664, 16665 & 19701 of 2018

¶27

22.02.2019

¶28

SP/25.03.2019/ 2P/5C

¶29

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

Chandra Bakiyalakshmi v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bakiyalakshmi 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

M/S.Koya &Company Construction Vs the Chief Engineer

Rajendran, S/O.Subramanian, Vs the Government of India

S.Saravanan, Vs the Regional Manager

Sobin Mathew, Vs Bharathidasan University

P.Durairaj, Vs the Joint Commissioner

Tomy Corera Vs the Chairman Cum Managing