Allowed

S.Dhamodaran aged about 54 years v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Oct 2020WP/12943/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a revenue authority's order rejecting a patta transfer application. The Court held the authority lacked jurisdiction to relitigate a valid Lok Adalat award and quashed the order, remanding the matter with a direction to pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

S.Dhamodaran aged about 54 years Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.10.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.12943 of 2020 and WMP.No.16010 of 2020

¶6

S.Dhamodaran ... Petitioner
..Vs..
1.The District Collector,
Kallakurichi District.
2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Ulundurpet Taluk,
Kallakurichi District. ... Respondents

¶7

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus direction to call for the records on the file of 2^nd respondent, in proceeding no. nil, dated 29.01.2020 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the 2^nd respondent to issue patta in respect to the lands purchased by the petitioner on 18.12.2018 in S.Nos.72/4K, 72/4L, 72/4N and 72/4Q, measuring an extent of 2 acres 51 cents, under document No.3822 of 2018, on the file of Sub Registrar Elavanasoor Kottai, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents: Mr.Annai Ezhil

¶9

Government Advocate

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned communication received from the 2^nd respondent, dated 29.01.2020, wherein the petitioner was informed that the application submitted by him seeking for patta has been rejected.

¶12

The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the subject property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 18.12.2018. The vendor of the petitioner acquired title over the subject property by virtue of a compromise entered into

¶13

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

¶14

before the Lok Adalat on 06.02.2017 in O.S.No.119 of 2016, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet.

¶15

The petitioner made an application to the 2^nd respondent seeking for the transfer of patta in his name. The petitioner received a communication from the 2^nd respondent dated 29.01.2020, informing the petitioner that his application has been rejected.

¶16

When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court instructed the learned Government Advocate to furnish the order passed by the 2^nd respondent since, it was not given to the petitioner and the petitioner was merely informed about the fact that his application was rejected. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the learned Government Advocate has furnished the copy of the order passed by the 2^nd respondent. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶17

Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the 2^nd respondent has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner on the ground that an objection was raised by one Elumalai, who is claiming ownership over the property. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not even informed about any such objections raised and this fact has been put forth for the first time before this Court. The learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the 2^nd respondent is opposed to principles of natural justice and suffers from non-application of mind.

¶18

Per contra, Mr.Annai Ezhil, learned Government Advocate submitted that there is a dispute with regard to the ownership over the property and till the same is resolved before the competent civil Court, the 2^nd respondent cannot transfer the patta in favour of the petitioner.

¶19

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

¶20

A careful reading of the order passed by the 2^nd respondent shows that there is some objection raised by one Elumalai with regard to the transfer of patta in the name of the petitioner. The vendor of the petitioner derives her right through an award passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S No.119 of 2016 dated 06.02.2017. There is nothing on record to show that this award has been put to challenge before any Court, till date. The petitioner is only a subsequent purchaser of the property in the year 2018.

¶21

In the considered view of this Court, the 2nd respondent ought to have acted on the award passed by the Lok Adalat and he

¶22

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

¶23

cannot go into the issue with regard to the genuineness of the award and it is a matter, which is beyond his jurisdiction. Ultimately, the 2^nd respondent has to be satisfied based on records for the purpose of taking a decision to transfer the patta. The 2^nd respondent cannot enter into title disputes.

¶24

In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 30.03.2020 and the same is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the file of the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶25

In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
lpp
To
1.The District Collector,
Kallakurichi District.
2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Ulundurpet Taluk,
Kallakurichi District.
Copy to
The Sub Registrar
Elavanasorr Kottai,
Ulundurpet Taluk,
Kallakurichi.
+1 cc to M/s.V.Raghavachari,Advocate Sr.No. 34458
+1 cc to M/s.R.Senniyappan,Advocate Sr.No. 34596

¶27

W.P.No.12943 of 2020 and WMP.No.16010 of 2020 NR(CO) RMP(27/11/2020)

¶28

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

S.Dhamodaran aged about 54 years v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Dhamodaran aged about 54 years v. The District Collector

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

P.Chakkubai Vs The District Collector

S.Nithyanandam Vs The Commissioner

P.Chakkubai Vs The District Collector

The Southern Railway Vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director

Karupannan, Vs The Town and Country Planning Office

T.Bhagyalakshmi Vs The Area Officer