Disposed

Mr. C.Seethapathi, v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Sept 2022WP/11166/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging revenue orders denying a petitioner's property patta. The Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application pending the outcome of a related civil appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application subject to the outcome of the pending appeal.

Mr. C.Seethapathi, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.11166 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.09.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

Writ Petition No.11166 of 2013

¶7

and M.P.No.2 of 2013

¶8

C.Seethapathi ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Collector, Cuddalore,

¶11

Cuddalore District.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer/Sub-Collector, Cuddalore,

¶13

Cuddalore District.

¶14

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶15

4.The Tahsildar, Panrutti,

¶16

Cuddalore District.

¶17

5.Rajakumari … Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in

¶19

Page No.1 of 7

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.No.11166 of 2013

¶22

Na.Ka.Vi3/18212/2012 order dated 28.02.2013 and the order of the third respondent in Ni.Mu.A3/4553/2011 dated 17.04.2012 and quash the same and direct the fourth respondent to restore the patta in respect of the Agricultural landed property in Ayan Punjai S.No.96/5 of Chinnapurangani Village to an extent of 7 Acres and 40 cents and S.No.96/2 of Chinnapurangani Village to an extent of 40 cents situated at Panrutti Taluk, Cuddalore District in the name of petitioner father namely Chandrasekaran.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Jayaprakash for Mr.Dr.G.Krishnamurthy

¶24

For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Additional Government Pleader

¶25

For Respondent 5 : Mr.V.Ragavachari

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.Vi3/18212/2012 order dated 28.02.2013 and the order of the third respondent in Ni.Mu.A3/4553/2011 dated 17.04.2012 and quash the same and direct the fourth respondent to restore the patta in respect of the Agricultural landed Page No.2 of 7

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.11166 of 2013

¶30

property in Ayan Punjai S.No.96/5 of Chinnapurangani Village to an extent of 7 Acres and 40 cents and S.No.96/2 of Chinnapurangani Village to an extent of 40 cents situated at Panrutti Taluk, Cuddalore District in the name of petitioner father namely Chandrasekaran.

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that the agricultural land in Ayan Punjai S.No.96/5 of Chinnapurangani Village to an extent of 7 acres and 40 cents and S.No.96/2 of Chinnapurangani Village to an extent of 40 cents situated at Panruti was belonged to petitioner's father. In order to obtain patta for the said property, fifth respondent submitted some records before the fourth respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has filed O.S.No.53 of 2006 before the District Court Cuddalore (thereafter the suit was transferred to Sub-Court Panrutti and re assigned as O.S.No.74 of 2010) and the same was dismissed on 09.12.2011. By way of this order, the fifth respondent obtained patta on her favour. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the third respondent. However, the third respondent vide proceeding in Ni.Mu.A3/4553/2011 dated 17.04.2012 rejected the said appeal, against which, the petitioner preferred revision before the second respondent. The

¶32

Page No.3 of 7

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.11166 of 2013

¶35

second respondent also rejected the revision by its proceeding in Na.Ka.Vi3/18212/2012 dated 28.02.2013. Challenging the orders of the second and third respondent, this writ petition was filed.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as against decree in O.S.No.74 of 2010, the petitioner filed an appeal in A.S.Nos.30 & 39 of 2012 is pending before the District Court at Cuddalore between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. Hence, liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application, if he succeed in the case before the Appellate Court.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that

¶38

appeal preferred by the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Appellate Court. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissing this writ petition.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials

¶40

placed on record.

¶41

Though it is claimed that the appeal has been dismissed, however, no

¶42

Page No.4 of 7

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.11166 of 2013

¶45

material whatsoever is placed before this Court to substantiate the same. In such view of the matter, as only a limited relief has been sought for by the petitioner, this Court without going into the merits of the case, grants liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application, subject to the outcome of the appeal, if not already disposed by the Appellate Forum.

¶46

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶47

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶48

20.09.2022

¶49

vm Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No

¶50

To:

¶51

1.The District Collector, Cuddalore,

¶52

Page No.5 of 7

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.No.11166 of 2013

¶55

Cuddalore District.

¶56

2.The District Revenue Officer/Sub-Collector, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶57

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶58

4.The Tahsildar, Panrutti, Cuddalore District.

¶59

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

¶60

¶61

W.P.No.11166 of 2013

¶62

Page No.6 of 7

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.11166 of 2013

20.09.2022

Page No.7 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mr. C.Seethapathi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. C.Seethapathi, 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

V.Lakshmi Vs The Tahsildar

N.Raju (Deceased), Vs the District Collector

M. Vasheela Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P.Govindarajan, Vs The Director of Settlement

Mr. N.Athimoolam, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

V.a.Sivalingam, Vs the Secretary to Government