Dismissed

S.Syed Naveed v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Mar 2022WP/4093/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition under Article 226 seeking direction to dispose of an appeal within a reasonable time was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner erred in approaching the Collector directly under Section 3 of the Patta Passbook Act without first exhausting the remedy available before the Tahsildar.

What did the court decide?

The petition for direction to dispose of the appeal within a reasonable time was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Tahsildar.

S.Syed Naveed Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.4093 of 2022

S.Syed Naveed

...Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Dharmapuri District.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Dharmapuri District.

¶12

The Village Administrative Officer, Semmanahalli Village, Dharmapuri District.

¶13

Syed Mohammed Shah

¶14

Aajrambee ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER:The Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to dispose the appeal dated 26.12.2020 within a reasonable time.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy

¶17

For RR1 to 4 : Mr.M.Murali

¶18

Government Advocate

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition for Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to dispose the appeal dated 26.12.2020, within a reasonable time.

¶20

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father Syed Babu had purchased some property in S.F.NO.256, 277, 278

¶21

and 279, at Semmanahalli Village and he had two wives. His first wife namely Mrs.Hamsa has four children including the petitioner herein and his second wife namely Zainab bee has three children. After the death of his father, the 2^nd wife went to Bangalore for living. Subsequently all four male legal heirs of the 1^st wife, orally partitioned the property between them and the entire land has been looking after by Syed Mohammed Shah. Later, it is alleged that the said Syed Mohammed Shah silently alienated the property to others by using fabricated documents. Based on those documents, the patta name has been changed in the revenue records. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 07.10.2020 to conduct a detailed enquiry and to restore the name of his father in the revenue records, however, the respondent passed orders to approach the Civil Court for the grievance. Subsequently on 26.12.2020, the petitioner has made an appeal against the order passed by the 3^rd respondent, which is pending before the 2^nd respondent for a long period of time. Hence this petition is filed by the petitioner to dispose of the appeal.

¶22

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court may issue direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's appeal dated 26.12.2020, within a reasonable time as fixed by this Court.

¶23

4.Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents, notice to them is not necessary and this Court based on the available records, is inclined to dispose of the matter.

¶24

5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the petitioner is having efficacious remedy before the 3^rd respondent under Section 3 of the Patta Passbook Act. However, without availing the said remedy, the petitioner has directly filed Revision Petition before the 1^st respondent and hence prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶25

6.Facts in the present case is not in dispute that the petitioner's claim that he is the owner of the property in the said survey number under UDR scheme. However, he claims that based on the fraudulent documents, the patta got transferred in the name of the respondents 5 and 6 and for rectification of the error, the petitioner made the appeal before the appellate authority. However this Court is of the view that the petitioner instead of approaching the original authority namely the 3^rd respondent / the Tahsildar under Section 3 of the Patta Passbook Act, directly filed Revision Petition before the 1^st respondent, which is not sustainable and hence the prayer sought for in the present petition cannot be granted. However liberty is granted to file an appropriate application before the 3^rd respondent and

¶26

if any such application is filed, the 3^rd respondent may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the aggrieved persons, as expeditiously as possible.

¶27

6.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

¶33

The District Collector, Dharmapuri District.

¶34

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri District.

¶35

The Tahsildar, Dharmapuri District.

¶36

The Village Administrative Officer, Semmanahalli Village, Dharmapuri District.

¶37

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.14182

¶38

W.P.No.4093 of 2022

¶39

JP(CO) RGA(18/03/2022)(23/03/2022)

S.Syed Naveed v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Syed Naveed 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

Subbaiah Vs The District Collector

N.Sridhar, NO.C-7 Icl.Colony Vs the Sub Registrar

S.Noorjahan Vs The District Collector

K.M. Bangaru Raju Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Jeyachandran, Vs State of Tamilnadu

S. Hari Saravanan Vs the District Collector