Dismissed

Ramar.S v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC11 Mar 2021WP(MD)/5285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition for quashing the revenue officer's order cancelling the petitioner's patta and issuing one to a neighboring individual. The Court held that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy pending appeal before the District Revenue Officer, which had not been exhausted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Ramar.S Vs the District Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.5285 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶4

W.P.(MD) No.5285 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD) No.4211 of 2021

S.Ramar

.. Petitioner

1.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Office, Virudhunagar.

¶9

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶10

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

4.M.Suresh Kannan .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent vide his proceedings in T.R.20200109 26011913 dated 21.01.2021 and the consequential order of the 3^rd respondent of issuance of patta No 470 in favour of the 4^th respondent and quash the same as illegal in respect of petitioner's concern.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Murugan Additional Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that the land in S.No.4/1A2 to an extent of 1.32.5 ares situated at Singammal Puram Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk, was purchased by his father. The 4^th respondent is having the property in S.No.4/1A3 and the same is situated at southern side of the petitioner's property. According to the 4^th respondent, extent of the property was wrongly mentioned in the patta issued to him and was making a claim against the property owned by the petitioner.

¶16

2.The 4^th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.246 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur seeking to set aside the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and to reissue the patta rectifying the mistake and also for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/3

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.5285 of 2021

¶19

consequential injunction. According to the petitioner, the suit was partly allowed by the trial Court, against which, an appeal has been filed with a condone delay application in I.A.No.1 of 2019, in which, notice was ordered by the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli.

¶20

3.In the meanwhile, the 4^th respondent appears to have filed a revision petition before the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent passed an order of cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioner, vide order dated 01.01.2019. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent in A.No.33509/2019 and the same is pending.

¶21

4.Being aggrieved by the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 21.01.2021, by changing the revenue entries in the 'A' Register and by issuing patta in favour of the 4^th respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

5.From the above factual narrative, it could be seen that as against the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent, dated 21.01.2021, the petitioner has an effective appeal remedy before the 1^st respondent, which admittedly has not been exhausted in this case. This Court time and again has held that in patta matters, any aggrieved party must exhaust all the remedies that are made available under the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and no writ normally can be entertained without exhausting all the remedies available under the Act.

¶23

6.In this case, when an effective alternative remedy is available before the 1^st respondent, it is not open to the petitioner to rush to this Court at this time for whatever reason and seek intervention of this Court in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

7.For the above said reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

2/3

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.5285 of 2021

¶31

¶32

1.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Office, Virudhunagar.

¶33

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶34

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-10898[F] dated 12/03/2021 )

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.5285 of 2021 11.03.2021

¶37

SSS(CO) KK(08.04.2021) 3P 5C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

Ramar.S v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramar.S v. the District Revenue Officer

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

Abdul Jabbar. M.R Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Gunasekaran Vs the Sub Registrar

Ram Anand.R Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Narkis Parvin Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Palaniyappan.N Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Krishnan Vs the District Revenue Officer