Disposed

Murugan a v. the District Collector

Madras HC29 Oct 2021WP(MD)/19222/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a patta transfer without considering objections. The court directed the respondent to consider objections, notify a co-pattathar, and decide within three months through reasoned communication.

What did the court decide?

Directed third respondent to consider petitioner's objections, notify Ayya Subramaniya Muthaliyar, and dispose of application within 3 months via reasoned communication.

Murugan a Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.19222 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.10.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P(MD).No.19222 of 2021 and

¶4

W.M.P.(MD)No.15947 of 2021

¶5

A.Murugan ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶8

2.The Thasildar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶9

3.The Zonal Deputy Thasildar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

4.Velmurugan ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent not to transfer the patta in Patta No.1809 in favour of the fourth respondent without considering the objection given by the petitioner dated 15.09.2021 in respect of property in old S.F.No.15/6, new S.F.No.15/6B situated at Vijaya Ragava Muthaliyar Chathiram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District consequently direct the third respondent to adhere the rule in Rule 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 while considering the objection of the petitioner dated 15.09.2021.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokulraj For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan Counsel for State

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner seeks a direction to the third respondent not to transfer the patta under Patta No.1809 in favour of the fourth respondent without considering the objections of the petitioner dated 15.09.2021 in respect of the property bearing old S.F.No.15/6, new S.F.No.15/6B, at Vijaya Ragava Muthaliyar Chathiram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

2.The petitioner claims title over the above mentioned properties under two registered sale deeds dated 02.09.2010. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P(MD).No.19222 of 2021

¶18

petitioner also cites Patta No.1809 in respect of subdivided S.No.15/6B. According to the petitioner, a sale deed dated 15.06.1996 was registered before the Sub Registrar, Parasala, Kerala State in respect of the entire extent of property in old S.F.No.15/6. The said sale deed was cancelled on 13.08.1997. In spite of such cancellation, the petitioner alleges that the fourth respondent has submitted an application to mutate Patta No.1809 after unlawfully registering a sale deed in respect of the same property subsequently. Therefore, the petitioner submitted objections on 15.09.2021 to the third respondent. The present writ petition is filed to prevent the third respondent from mutating the patta without considering the petitioner's objections.

¶19

3.Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3. He submits that a reasonable opportunity would be provided to both the joint pattathars under Patta No.1809, including the petitioner herein, before a decision is taken on the request of the fourth respondent.

¶20

4.The petitioner has enclosed the sale deeds under which he has purchased the relevant property. The said sale deeds pertain to extents of 4356 sq.ft and 4035 sq.ft., respectively, in S.F.No.15/6. Patta No.1809 is on record. The said patta has been issued in the names of one Ayya Subramaniya Muthaliyar and the petitioner. It pertains to S.No.15/6B of an extent of 20 ares, which roughly corresponds to 50 cents. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has purchased a small extent out of the larger extent of 20 ares. As such, Ayya Subramaniya Muthaliyar should be heard in course of inquiry in addition to the petitioner.

¶21

5.Accordingly, without entering findings on the merits, W.P. (MD)No.19222 of 2021 is disposed of by directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's objections before deciding the application for grant of patta by the fourth respondent. The third respondent is also directed to put Ayya Subramaniya Muthaliyar, who is the joint pattathar as regards Patta No.1809 on notice. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, Ayya Subramaniya Muthaliyar and the fourth respondent herein, the application for patta shall be disposed of by way of a reasoned communication within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.(MD)No.15947 of 2021 is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (AD-II)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

W.P(MD).No.19222 of 2021

¶29

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶30

¶31

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶32

2.The Thasildar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶33

3.The Zonal Deputy Thasildar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.S.GOKULRAJ, Advocate (SR-33246[F] dated 29/10/2021)

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP (SR-33386[F] dated 01/11/2021)

¶36

W.P(MD).No.19222 of 2021 29.10.2021

¶37

AM(CO)

¶38

GC/PM(18.11.2021) 3P 6C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

Murugan a v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan a 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

FMD-10, Bodi Fishermen Cooperative Society Vs the Director of Fisheries

Saravanan.S Vs Saravanan

Kamaraj.a Vs the Chief Secretary to Government

Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam Trust (Tmmk) Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Thangaraj.M Vs the Commissioner

Kannan.M Vs the District Collector