Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking cancellation of a patta based on a defective sale deed involving minors. The Single Judge held that the revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide title disputes.
Direction to cancel the patta and issue joint patta dismissed. Petitioner directed to approach the 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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.04.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.4234 of 2018
S.Muthusamy ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector, Dindigul district, Dindigul.
2.The Tahsildar, Vedasandur Taluk Office, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.
3.Palanichamy ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to cancel the patta on the name of the 3rd respondent and issued the joint patta on the petitioner's name and third respondent's name with regard to lands in Palayam Village, Survey No.777/3, 777/4, 777/5A, 779/2A and 778/1 situated at Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District based on the petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2018 within a time frame stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar
For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate
For R3 : Mr.R.Maheswaran for Mr.K.Suresh Kumar
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The property in question originally belongs to the grandfather of the writ petitioner and the third respondent. The writ petitioner and the third respondent are brothers. It appears that their grandfather sold the property in question, in favour of the third respondent by a sale deed, when they were minors. The revenue records at present stand in the name of the third respondent. The petitioner seeks its cancellation. The petitioner impeaches the sale document also.
3.I am of the view that in such cases, the remedy is only before the jurisdictional Civil Court. The revenue authorities https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cannot decide the controversy raised by the writ petitioner.
2
4.This writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. It is always open to the writ petitioner to move the jurisdictional Civil Court and his contentions are left open. No costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)
/TRUE COPY/
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )
To
1.The District Collector, Dindigul district, Dindigul.
2.The Tahsildar, Vedasandur Taluk Office, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.
+1 CC to M/s.G.GOMATHI SANKAR, Advocate ( SR-63590[F] dated 27/04/2019 )
+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-63736[F] dated 29/04/2019 )
+1 CC to M/s.K.SURESH KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-63926[F] dated 29/04/2019 )
W.P.(MD)No.4234 of 2018 26.04.2019
CS: 14/05/2019/2P/6C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revenue authorities can decide a dispute regarding the validity of a sale deed executed when minors were involved.
Whether the remedy for cancelling the patta on the basis of a defective sale deed lies before the revenue authorities or the Civil Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Muthusamy
The District Collector, Dindigul district
The Tahsildar, Vedasandur Taluk Office
Palanichamy
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
