Dismissed

P.Ramanathan v. The Commissioner of Revenue

Madras HC6 Oct 2020WP/13817/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order staying revenue proceedings and mutation pending a civil suit regarding property title. The Court held revenue authorities must yield to the Civil Court's decision and dismissed the writ petition as no prejudice was caused.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the order staying revenue proceedings pending civil suit is dismissed with no costs.

P.Ramanathan Vs The Commissioner of Revenue — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.10.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.13817 of 2020
1.P.Ramanathan
2.Natarajan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Salem, Salem District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sankagiri Taluk,
Salem District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Edappadi Taluk,
Salem District.
5.Perumal
6.Madhu ... Respondents

¶6

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to orders passed by the 2^nd respondent in his proceeding in Na.Ka.36415/2019/G1 dated 30.06.2020 and the order passed by the 3^rd respondent in his proceeding Pa.Mu.300/2019(C) dated 05.12.2019, quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Elango

¶8

For Respondents 1 to 4 :Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi

¶9

Page numbers

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 30.06.2020.

¶13

2.The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the subject property. They made an application on 09.05.2008 before the fourth respondent seeking to sub divide the subject property and grant of a separate patta. The fourth respondent passed an order for sub division of the property and for grant of patta in favour of the petitioners. This order was passed on 16.06.2008. Subsequently, an appeal was filed before the third respondent and the third respondent, by order dated 05.12.2019, had set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before the second respondent.

¶14

3.The second respondent, after considering the entire facts, passed the impugned order dated 30.06.2020 wherein the second respondent has kept the order passed by the third respondent in abeyance till the final result in the pending suit in O.S.No.411 of 2019, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Edappadi.

¶15

4.Heard Mr.M.Elango, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4.

¶16

5.The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, submitted that pursuant to the orders passed by the second respondent, necessary instructions have been issued to the fourth respondent not to cause any mutation in the revenue records and maintain the status quo till the final disposal of the suit.

¶17

6.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also carefully perused the order passed by the second respondent. In the considered view of this Court, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent. The second respondent was perfectly right in stating that the parties are already before the Civil Court and therefore, the revenue will have to lay off its lands from the issue till it is finally decided by the competent Civil Court. The stand taken by the second respondent is perfectly in accordance with law and also the earlier judgments passed by this Court. Further, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioners since the status quo is going to be maintained in the revenue records till the final disposal of the Civil Suit.

¶18

Page numbers

¶19

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

¶20

7.In view of the above, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Sgl
To
1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Salem, Salem District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Edappadi Taluk,
Salem District.
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.33276
W.P.No.13817 of 2020
CP(CO)
CB(05/11/2020)

¶22

Page numbers

¶23

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

P.Ramanathan v. The Commissioner of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramanathan v. The Commissioner of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ozone Homes Private Limited Vs The Inspector General of Registration

G.Lakshmipathy Vs The Joint Secretary to Government

H.Sathak Ahmed Shaw Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Raja Vs The Secretary

Indrani, Vs The District Collector

C.Chinnapaiyan, Vs The District Collector