Dismissed

P.Thirumoorthy v. The District Collector

Madras HC4 Aug 2021WP/2672/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the Revenue Tahsildar must examine representations regarding patta issuance after providing notice and opportunity of hearing. The court refrained from examining ownership claims pending in civil litigation. Directions issued to complete the exercise within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

3rd respondent directed to examine representations after affording opportunity of hearing and issue notice to parties; decision to be passed within 12 weeks.

P.Thirumoorthy Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

WP.Nos.2672 & 2675 of 2021 & WMP.Nos.2994 & 2999 of 2021

¶6

[Video Conferencing]

¶7

P.Thirumoorthy 2. K.Samidurai ... Petitioners in WP.No.2672 of 2021 1. D.Deepaksaravanan 2. C.Suresh ... Petitioners in WP.No.2675 of 2021 Versus 1. The District Collector District Collector Office, Erode-11. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Brough Road, Erode. 3. The Revenue Tahsildar Tahsildar Office, Modakurichi Erode District. 4. The Revenue Inspector 46, Pudhur Village, Modakurichi Taluk Erode District. 5. The Village Administrative Officer, 46, Pudhur Village, Modakurichi Taluk Erode District. 6.M.Devaraj 7.D.Hariprasad ... Respondents in both WPs **RR6&7 impleaded as per orders of this Court dated 16.04.2021 in WMP.Nos.4736/2021 & 4740/2021 in WP.Nos.2672 & 2675/2021

¶8

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

¶9

Prayer in WP.No.2672 of 2021 : - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 to 5 herein to issue patta in petitioner's name for the properties in SF.Nos.264/4A, 264/7A, 264/10A, 264/6, 264/7C and 264/5 in 46, Pudhur Village, Modakurichi Taluk by considering the petitioner representation dated 21.12.2020.

¶10

Prayer in WP.No.2675 of 2021 : - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 to 5 herein to issue patta in petitioner's name for the properties in SF.Nos.264/4A, 264/7A, 264/10A, 264/6, 264/7C and 264/5 in 46, Pudhur Village, Modakurichi Taluk by considering the petitioner representation dated 21.12.2020.

¶11

M/s.G.Keerthana

¶12

For Petitioners in M/s.G.Keerthana both Writ Petitions : Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan For RR 1 to 5 in both Writ Petitions : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Government Advocate For RR6 & 7 in both Writ Petitions : Mr.V.S.Kesavan

¶13

COMMON ORDER

¶14

(1) The scope of the writ petitions is narrow though Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan and Mr.V.S.Kesavan have issues with the representations made by the other side.

¶15

(2) The issue relates insofar as the present writ petitions is concerned, with the representations given on 21.12.2020 in both the writ petitions, primarily to the 3^rd respondent / Revenue Tahsildar, Modakurichi Taluk, Erode District, and grant patta in favour of the writ petitioners herein with respect to the properties in SF.Nos. 264/4A, 264/7A, 264/10A, 264/6, 264/7C and 264/5 in Pudhur Village, Modakurichi Taluk, Erode District.

¶16

(3) It is stated hat there have been Sale Deeds executed in favour of the writ petitioners herein. I am not examining the circumstances surrounding the execution of the said Sale Deeds because that is an aspect deeply questioned which have to be deciphered by the Judge who examines the documents and evidence in OS.No.136/2019 now pending on the file of the District Court at Erode.

¶17

(4) In view of that, I refrain myself from going into a discussion with respect to the averments made in the writ petitions or in the affidavit filed in the application seeking to implead the respondents who are represented by Mr.V.S.Kesavan, learned counsel.

¶18

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

¶19

(5) A mandamus is directed to the 3^rd respondent to examine the representations and prior to such examination of the said representations, issue notice to the writ petitioners and also to the contesting respondents, receive further representations in writing, granting an opportunity of hearing and examine the written materials and the arguments advanced and thereafter take a decision, whether, any orders can be passed with respect to the representations and if an order is passed declining to grant any order on the representations, reason for the same may also be given. The 3^rd respondent may complete the said exercise within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Let the parties agitate before the Civil Court with respect to any other issue in which they are already at lis in that particular suit.

¶20

(6) The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

¶26

The District Collector District Collector Office, Erode-11.

¶27

The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Brough Road, Erode.

¶28

The Revenue Tahsildar Tahsildar Office, Modakurichi Erode District.

¶29

The Revenue Inspector

¶30

46, Pudhur Village, Modakurichi Taluk Erode District.

¶31

The Village Administrative Officer,

¶32

46, Pudhur Village, Modakurichi Taluk Erode District.

¶33

+2ccs to M/s.G.Keerthana, Advocate, S.R.No.37927, 37928

¶34

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.38833

¶35

WP.Nos.2672 & 2675/2021 SRA(CO) HS(24/08/2021)

¶36

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

P.Thirumoorthy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Thirumoorthy 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.Chandiran Vs The Tahsildar

R.Muniya Ammal, Vs The District Collector

M.K.Ramasamy Vs The District Collector

Mr. N.Raja Vs The Collector

S.N.S.Sukumaran Vs R.Lakshmi

P.Damodharan, Vs The District Collector