Disposed

C.Muthuraman, v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC21 Jun 2022WP/5408/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the cancellation of a patta in his vendor's name before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The High Court dismissed the writ petition due to availability of alternative remedy, though it directed the filing of a revision within 30 days. Hipu

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted 30 days to file appropriate revision before the District Revenue Officer; writ petition disposed of with no costs.

C.Muthuraman, Vs The District Revenue Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶5

WP.No.5408 of 2018 and WMP.No.6664 of 2018

C.Muthuraman

... Petitioner

vs.

The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Avadi, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent made in Na.Ka.2835/2017/A5 dated 12.01.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to issue patta in favour of the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Kalyan Kishen Singh For Respondents : Mr.P.Anandakumar, Government Advocate.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur cancelling the patta that stood in the name of the petitioner's vendor.

¶16

2. The main contention of the petitioner is that there was no notice to him prior to the cancellation and there was no enquiry. Even from the impugned order it could be seen that a Revision would lie before the District Revenue Officer against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling patta. Rule 15 of the Tamil Naud Patta Pass Book Rules also provides for Revision before the District Revenue Officer.

¶17

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

¶18

3. In view of the availability of the alternative remedy, I do not think that this writ petition could be entertained. However, taking note of the fact that the writ petition has been pending since 2018, the petitioner is granted 30 days time from today to file appropriate revision as contemplated under Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules. If a Revision is filed within 30 days from today, the Revisional Authority viz., District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur would entertain the Revision without reference to the question of limitation.

¶19

4. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

¶20

5. The Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioner forthwith.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

dsa

¶26

¶27

The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur.

¶28

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur.

¶29

The Tahsildar,

¶30

Avadi, Chennai.

¶31

COPY TO

¶32

The Section Officer, E.R Section, High Court, Madras-104.

¶33

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.38584

¶34

WP.No.5408 of 2018 and WMP.No.6664 of 2018

¶35

PMK(CO) CT/24/06/2022

¶36

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

C.Muthuraman, v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Muthuraman, v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Gowri Vs The Zonal Assistant Health Officer

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs Sunriv Pharmaccuticals Pvt. Ltd.

V.G.Selvaraj Vs The Lok Adalat Authority

Mathumitha Vs R. Gokul Kumar

R.Rajapandian Vs The Regional Director

Dr.Jayakavitha Vs S.Sankara Narayanan