Dismissed

Jeevanantham.P v. the District Registrar

Madras HC21 Jan 2021WP(MD)/910/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, examined a petition seeking directions to dispose of a land representation. The Court observed that the petitioner had already filed a similar petition (W.P. (MD) No.12974 of 2020) which was pending. Holding that multiple litigations should be avoided, the Court dismissed the present petitio

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. No direction was given to the respondents.

Jeevanantham.P Vs the District Registrar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.910 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.01.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶4

W.P.(MD) No.910 of 2021

¶5

P.Jeevanantham

¶6

¶7

1.The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Velu Nachiyar Valagam Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶8

2.The Joint Registrar II, Joint Registration Office II, Dindigul District. .. Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass an orders on the petitioner's representation dated 24.12.2020.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Illanchezian

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

According to the petitioner, the land in S.Nos.82/3, 83/3, 85/2 and 96/1 situated at Thoothanuthu Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, is his ancestral property and the patta was given in the name of his father as a joint patta. During the UDR scheme, the names of some persons were included and the said land was also subdivided subsequently. While inclusion of the names, the petitioner's father's name was removed during the UDR scheme.

¶14

2.On 07.06.2016, the petitioner gave a representation to the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, to rectify the error made in the UDR scheme and to issue patta in the name of the petitioner and other legal heirs of his father, late.Pitchai. However, the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul did not pass any orders for more than 5 years and therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD) No.10032 of 2020. After the filing of the writ petition, the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, passed final orders in his proceedings dated 26.08.2020, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. As against that, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P. (MD) No.12974 of 2020 and the same is pending for finalization before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.910 of 2021

¶17

3.According to the petitioner, while the writ petition is pending before this Court, the rival claimants were attempting to alienate the property to third parties and also attempted to register the documents for alienation. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking a direction to dispose of the representation, dated 24.12.2020 submitted in regard to the subject matter.

¶18

4.From the above narrative, it could be seen that the petitioner has already approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No.12974 of 2020, against the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, rejecting his claim and the said writ petition is admittedly pending before this Court. While the writ petition is pending before this Court, this Court finds that there is absolutely no necessity for the petitioner to come up with this second writ petition seeking a direction from this Court to dispose of the representation, dated 24.12.2020.

¶19

5.This Court is of the considered view that any subsequent adverse action, which is contemplated or initiated by the third parties, it is always open to the petitioner to approach this Court in the pending writ petition and to workout his remedies. It is certainly not open to the petitioner to file another writ petition as such attempt of the petitioner would only, needlessly, multiple the litigations before this Court in regard to the same dispute as between the parties.

¶20

6.Accordingly, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition has been needlessly filed without any subsequent orders and subsequent cause of action and hence, the same cannot be entertained and therefore, it stands dismissed. No costs.

¶21

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶22

¶23

¶24

1.The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Velu Nachiyar Valagam Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶25

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

¶26

2/3

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.910 of 2021

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.910 of 2021 21.01.2021

¶29

2.The Joint Registrar II, Joint Registration Office II, Dindigul District.

¶30

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-2050[F] dated 25/01/2021 )

¶31

VB (10.02.2021) 3P 4C

¶32

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

¶33

3/3

Jeevanantham.P v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevanantham.P v. the District Registrar

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

Nachammai Achi Vs the District Collector

C.Poovasalingam Vs the District Revenue Officer

K.Pachamal Vs the Tasildhar

S.Perumal Vs M.Pattamuthu@Ramesh

Gowshik.R Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Lalitha Devi, Vs the Inspector General of