Dismissed

K.Kumar v. The District Collector

Madras HC3 Sept 2021WP/18440/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the mutation of property revenue records from the petitioner to the fourth respondent. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing revenue authorities to dispose of the petitioner's representation on merits within specified time, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2021 and pass appropriate orders on merits within twelve weeks.

K.Kumar Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.09.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

W.P.NO.18440 OF 2021 AND W.M.P.NO.19655 OF 2021

¶6

K.Kumar ... Petitioner

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

The District Collector, Tiruvanamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Arani Revenue Division,

¶10

Arani, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Kalasapakkam Taluk, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶12

Vetrivelan ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER:-

¶14

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constition of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 17.08.2021 and thereby direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to mutate the revenue records stands in the name of the petitioner into the name of the 4^th respondent or any other person in respect of the property in Survey No.81, Gengavaram Village,PolurTaluk, presently Kalasapakkam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District totally to an extent of acre 1.00 cents and well pending disposal of the suit in O.S.No.215/2017 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Arani, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 17.08.2021 and thereby, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to mutate the revenue records stands in the name of the petitioner into the name of the 4^th respondent or any other person in respect of the property in Survey No.81, Gengavaram Village, Polur Taluk, presently Kalasapakkam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, totally to an extent of acre 1.00 cents and well, pending disposal of the suit in O.S.No.215/2017 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Arani, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the property in Ayan Punjai Survey No.81, Gengavaram Village, Polur Taluk, presently Kalasapakkam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, measuring to an extent of acre 1.00 cents and well from his vendor namley Arunachalam and his legal heirs by virtue of sale deed in Doc.No.1237/2001, dated 30.07.2001 on the file of Kadaladi Sub Registrar Office for a valid sale consideration and all the Revenue records stood in the name of the petitioner. Follwoing the same, he is absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. In 2016, the 4^th respondent and his henchmen attempted to interfere his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Then, the 4th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.83 of 2006 against his vendor namely Arunachalam and got exparte decree in his favour and thereafter, exectuion petition was filed in E.P.No.32 of 2009 and the same was ordered in his favour, in which, the petitioner was not added as a party to the suit proceedings. After the sale made by the second defendant/ Arunachalam therein to the petitioner/plaintiff with regard to the schedule mentioned property, the petitioner along with others had filed the suit in O.S.No.211 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Polur for the relief of partition and separate possession claiming 1/5^th sahre over the schedule mentioned property against the petitioner herein. Although the 4^th respondent is very well aware of the fact that the said Arunachalam had sold the property to the petitioner and all the Revenue records have been mutated in his name. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.215 of 2017 against the 4^th respondent and others before the learned Subordinate Judge, Arni, seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as null and void. During the pendency of the suit, the 4^th respondent filed before this Court in W.P.No.15506 of 2020 againstt the respondents 1 to 3, seeking for the relief of Mandamus by suppressing the pendencey of the above suit in O.S.No.215/2017 and the same was disposed on 04.11.2020. Based

¶20

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

¶21

on the above order, the fourth resopndent attempted to mutate the patta and other Revenue records which stands in the name of the pettitioner. Eventhough the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 17.08.2021 to the respondents and other officials requesting them not to mutate patta stands in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 17.08.2021 to the respondents requesting them not mutate patta stands in his name to the fourth respondent. Since the said representation did not yield any result, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2021 and dispose of the same within a stipulated time that may be framed by this Court.

¶23

Having regard to the limited scope of the prayer that is now sought for in this writ petition before this Court and taking into account the submissions made on either side, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's representation or the case pleaded by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2021 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is also closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The District Collector, Tiruvanamalai District,

¶30

Tiruvannamalai.

¶31

The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶32

Arani Revenue Division,

¶33

Arani, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶34

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

¶35

The Tahsildar, Kalasapakkam Taluk, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.44430

¶37

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.45232

¶38

W.P.NO.18440 OF 2021 AND W.M.P.NO.19655 OF 2021

¶39

AK(CO) PBS/29/09/2021

¶40

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

K.Kumar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kumar 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

S. Viji Vs The District Collector

P.Srividhya, Vs The District Collector

K.Sathyanarayana, Vs the District Collector

Mrs.Chandrakumari Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Basha Jathi Vs The District Registrar

G.Subramaniyan Vs The Inspector General of Registration