Allowed

D.Selvam @Selvakumar (Died) v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC8 Jul 2021WP(MD)/7365/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court recorded a compromise regarding patta issuance. It directed the deposit of Rs. 2,50,000 as security, ordered the patta to be issued within four weeks, and directed the quashing of the respondent's order.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned order; Direction to deposit Rs. 2,50,000; Direction to issue patta within four weeks upon receipt of deposit.

D.Selvam @Selvakumar (Died) Vs the District Revenue Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.7365 of 2009

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court DATED: 08.07.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶3

W.P.(MD)Nos.7365 of 2009 and 3706 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1/2009, 1/2013 in W.P.(MD)No. 7365/2009 and 1/2014 in W.P.(MD)No.3706/2014 (Through Video Conferencing)

¶4

W.P.(MD) No.7365/2009

¶5

1.D.Selvam @ Selvakumar (died)

¶6

2.S.Chandra

¶7

3.D.S.Janani

¶8

4.D.S.Jegan ... Petitioners

¶9

(Petitioners 2 to 4 are substituted for the deceased sole petitioner vide order dated 18.12.2018 made in WMP(MD) No.22370/2018)

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The District Revenue Officer Theni District, Theni.

¶12

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam

Theni District.

3.The Tahsildar

Taluk Office, Theni

4.M.Sermakani ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in Pa.Mu.No.5399/05/A3 dated 18.06.2009 quash the same, and to direct the 3^rd respondent to issue patta to the petitioner forthwith for 2.75 acres of land in S.Nos.367/1 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 376 in Unjampatty Village, Periyakulam, Theni Taluk, as per the

¶18

1/5

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.7365 of 2009

¶20

orders of the 2^nd respondent dated 24.10.2008 in Na.Ka.NO.5039/2008/A3.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Subramanian

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai for R1 to R3 Government Advocate Mr.T.Mohan for m/s Pon Karthikeyan for R4

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.3706/2014

¶24

D.Selvam @ Selvakumar (died)

¶25

1.S.Chandra 2.D.S.Janani 3.D.S.Jegan ... Petitioners (Petitioners 1 to 3 are substituted for the deceased sole petitioner vide order dated 24.06.2021 made in WMP(MD) No.22371/2018)

¶26

Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer Theni District, Theni. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam Theni District. 3.The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Theni 4.Tamilnadu Water and Sewage Board Rep. by its Executive Engineer, NRT Nagar, Theni Theni District. 5.TANGEDCO Rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Theni, Theni District. 6.Unchampatti Panchayat, Rep. by its President, Unchampatti Theni District. ... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

2/5

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.7365 of 2009

¶29

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 4 to 6 or their men or agents or anybody claiming under them from putting up any construction in the petitioner's property bearing S.No. 367/1 and 376 of Unjampatti village, Theni Taluk, Theni District measuring 2.75 acres or extending power supply to the proposed construction.

¶30

For Petitioners :Mr.R.Subramanian

¶31

For Respondents :Mr.M.Lingadurai for R1 to R3

¶32

Government Advocate

¶33

Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha for R5

¶34

Mr.M.Rajarajan for R6

¶35

ORDER

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.7365/2009

¶37

It is brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 24.06.2021, the petitioners and the 4^th respondent went over to the office of the third respondent on 01.07.2021 at 11.00 a.m. and they have explained the compromise to the third respondent.

¶38

The learned Government Advocate circulated the written instructions received from the Tahsildar, Theni, wherein, it is found that the Tahsildar has recorded the statement of both sides and the Tahsildar has sought for some time to pass appropriate orders after collecting the arrears of loan to be paid to the Government under the Land Improvement Scheme.

¶39

This writ petition is ordered in terms of the compromise between the parties extracted hereunder:

¶40

“1.The 4^th respondent has no objection for allowing the above writ petition and issuing patta in favour of the petitioners in respect of 2.75 acres of land in S.No.367/1 and S.No.376 of Unjampatty Village, Theni Taluk and District after collecting the arrears as per the order of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.5039/2008/A3, dated 24.10.2008.

¶41

2.The petitioners hereby undertake to execute sale deed conveying 1 acre 37.5 cents out of 2.75 acres of land in S.No.367/1 and S.No.376 of Unjampatti Village, Theni Taluk and District in favour of the 4^th respondent after obtaining patta from the respondents 1 to 3.

¶42

3.If the petitioners fail to comply with the clause (2) of this compromise memo, the 4^th respondent is at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

3/5

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.7365 of 2009

¶45

liberty to initiate contempt/appropriate proceedings against them.

¶46

4.There is no mutual claim between the petitioners and the 4^th respondent.”

¶47

3.1. It is seen from the records that the total amount that was due and payable in the year 1963 as could be seen from the relevant document is a sum of Rs.680/-. Even if the same has to be repaid with an exorbitant interest, it will work out to a few thousands of Rupees. Till the exact amount is calculated, this Court directs the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/(Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) before the third respondent.

¶48

3.2. The third respondent immediately on receipt of this deposit shall proceed to pass orders granting patta in favour of the petitioners with respect to the subject properties within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the deposit amount from the petitioners.

¶49

3.3. The third respondent shall verify the relevant documents and arrive at an exact figure that is due and payable by the petitioners.

¶50

3.4. If the amount is less than what the petitioners' deposit, the balance amount shall be paid back to the petitioners immediately. If the amount is more than what the petitioners have deposited, the balance amount shall be claimed from the petitioners and the same shall be paid by the petitioners within a period of 10 ten days from the date of receipt of notice from the third respondent.

¶51

3.5. In view of the compromise between the parties and in view of the above directions, the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 18.06.2009 is hereby quashed.

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.3706/2014

¶53

In view of the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.7365/2009, W.P.(MD) No.3706/2014 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶54

No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶55

// True Copy //

¶56

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶57

¶58

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

¶59

4/5

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.7365 of 2009

¶61

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. To

¶62

1.The District Revenue Officer Theni District, Theni.

¶63

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶64

3.The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Theni 4.Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Water and Sewage Board NRT Nagar, Theni, Theni District.

¶65

5.Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Theni, Theni District.

¶66

+2 CC to M/s.R.SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate, Copy Appln. SR.Nos.21752 and 21753 dated 8.7.2021

¶67

W.P.(MD)No.7365 of 2009 and 3706 of 2014 08.07.2021

¶68

MGJ(22.07.2021) 5P 8C

¶69

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

¶70

5/5

D.Selvam @Selvakumar (Died) v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Selvam @Selvakumar (Died) 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.C. Balakrishnan, Vs the Sub Registrar

Sannasi.a Vs the Secretary

Sureshkumar.S Vs the Deputy Registrar

Jenipan Vs the District Collector

Panneerselvam.S Vs the District Collector

Govinthaammal.K Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police