Disposed

E.T.Annamalai, v. District Collector

Madras HC15 Nov 2022WP/24569/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging revenue records change and restoration of patta. It observed that civil suits regarding land title are pending before the District Munsif Court, Alandur. The writ is thus disposed of with directions for the civil court to decide the case within four months.

What did the court decide?

Disposed without deciding title; directed Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur to dispose of pending suits within four months. All impugned revenue proceedings held subject to civil suit outcome.

E.T.Annamalai, Vs District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.Nos.24569 & 25957 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.Nos.24569 and 25957 of 2014

¶7

and M.P.No.1 of 2014 (2 petitions) and 2 of 2014 (2 petitions)

¶8

1.E.T.Annamalai 2.T.Ramalingam 3.T.Sundaramoorthy .. Petitioners in both Wps

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.The District Collector Collectorate of Kancheepuram District Peria Kancheepuram 631 501

¶11

2.The District Revenue Officer 7, Nellukara Street Kancheepuram Distict Peria Kancheepuram 631 501

¶12

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer GST Road, Tambaram Chennai – 600 045

¶13

4.The Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk No.3, I Street, Kumaran Nagar Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119

¶14

5.S.Parvathi Ammal 6.E.S.Lingamoorthy (Deceased) 7.S.Saravanaswamy 8.S.Kuppusamy

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.Nos.24569 & 25957 of 2014

¶18

9.S.Sumathi

¶19

10.L.Patchai Nayaki 11.L.Prasanth

¶20

12.L.Priyanka

¶21

(R10 to R12 substituted as LRs of deceased sixth respondent vide Order dated 14.10.2022 made in W.M.P.Nos.24166 & 24168/2022 in W.P.Nos.24569 & 25957/2014 by NSKJ)

¶22

... Respondents in both cases

¶23

Prayer in W.P.No.24569 of 2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the third respondent culminating in its order No.Pa.Mu780/2014/A dated 31.07.2014 and quash the same.

¶24

Prayer in W.P.No.25957 of 2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to restore the patta bearing No.977 in the joint names of the Petitioners for lands in S.No.(1)104/4B-0.04.0 ares, 2) 104/6B-0.05.0 ares, 3) 104/6C1-0.03.0 ares, 4)104/8 - 0.09.50 ares, 5) 105/5-0.05.0 ares, 6) 105/60.07.0 ares, 7)105/7-0.10.0 ares, 8) 105/8 - 0.09.5 ares 9)106-0.10.50 ares 10)107/2-0.09.00 ares, 11)108/1-0.05.ares 12)108/2-0.05.5 ares, 13) 108/30.06.0 ares, 14)108/4-0.06.0 ares, 15) 110/8-0.03.5 ares, 16)115/1-0.07.0 ares, 17) 115/2-0.07.5 ares, 18)116/1-0.09.0ares, 19)118/1A1 - 0.09.5 ares, 20) 119/2A-0.11.0 ares 21)7/4-0.26.50 ares, 22) 8/1A-0.74.50 ares, 23) 92/3-0.02.0 ares, 24) 92/4-0.01.50 ares, 25)92/5- 0.01.0 ares, 26) 92/6 - 0.01.50 ares, 27) 94/11-0.10.0 ares, 28)94/2-0.05.0 ares, 29)94/8-0.05.0 ares, 30)94/9-0.05.0 ares measuring a total extent of 1.73.0 cancelled by fourth respondent pursuant to the letter number Na.Ka.No.1079/2013/A dated 05.04.2013 of third respondent.

¶25

For Petitioners : Mr.N.L.Rajah (in both WPs) For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopal for R1 to R4 (in both Wps) Government Advocate

¶26

Mr.G.Dinesh Kumar (in both WPs) for R5 to R12 COMMON ORDER

¶27

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.Nos.24569 & 25957 of 2014

¶29

These petitions have been filed challenging the order of the third respondent effecting change in the revenue records, thereby deleting the name of the petitioners.

¶30

Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that that subsequently on the representation of the petitioners, the rectifications have been made. However, there are some findings with regard to the title in respect of which, the private respondents had filed a suit in O.S.No.1079 of 2013 and the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.105 of 2014 both are pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.

¶31

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. As the

¶32

Civil Court has seized the the subject matter, this Court is of the view that any proceedings issued by the Revenue Department will be subject to the result of the Civil Suit.

¶33

In such view of the matter, no further order is required in these writ petitions and accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur to dispose of the main suits within

¶34

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.Nos.24569 & 25957 of 2014

¶36

a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Any proceedings of the revenue department which were impugned in these writ

¶37

petitions and subsequent proceedings are always subject to the result of the above Civil Suit. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

15.11.2022

¶39

dhk Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No To

¶40

1.The Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.

¶41

2.The District Collector Collectorate of Kancheepuram District Peria Kancheepuram 631 501

¶42

3.The District Revenue Officer 7, Nellukara Street Kancheepuram Distict Peria Kancheepuram 631 501

¶43

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer GST Road, Tambaram Chennai – 600 045

¶44

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶45

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.Nos.24569 & 25957 of 2014

¶47

dhk

¶48

5.The Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk No.3, I Street, Kumaran Nagar Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119

¶49

W.P.Nos.24569 and 25957 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 (2 petitions) and 2 of 2014 (2 petitions)

¶50

15.11.2022

¶51

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

E.T.Annamalai, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.T.Annamalai, v. District Collector

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

Dr. Syed Jawad Hussain, Vs M/s. Ing Vysya Bank Limited

R.Kalyanaraman, Vs The State Government of

Kaashyap Technologies Ltd. Vs Nitin Kumar Dhirajlal Gokal

Public Information Officer Vs the Registrar

T.M.Parthasarathi, Vs The Chief Secretary

M/s.Rain Dropps R.O.Water Pvt. Vs The Commissioner