Allowed

Pl. Deivanai(Died), v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC20 Dec 2022WP(MD)/1117/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bench set aside an order rejecting a patta application due to a pending 1933 suit, remanding the matter for reconsideration after accounting for the petitioner's subsequent decree-holding status and a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to 1st respondent to dispose of application after hearing parties within 12 weeks.

Pl. Deivanai(Died), Vs the District Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :20.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶7

PL.Deivanai (Died)

¶8

Anandhavalli ... Petitioner (Petitioner impleaded vide Court Order dated 05.08.2022 in W.M.P. (MD).No.7544 of 2018 in W.P(MD).No.1117/2013 by RVJ)

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Revenue Officer (DRO) Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.S.V.Shanmugam ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 03.09.2012 in K.K.gp.1-266-2012 and quash the same and directing the 1^st respondent herein to enquire into the matter in accordance with law.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.R.sundar Srinivasan For Respondents :Ms.D.Farjana Ghowshia Special Government Pleader for R1

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶18

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 1^st respondent directing the petitioner to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, after disposal of the suit that is pending before the Sub Court, Devakottai.

¶19

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said

¶20

suit is of the year 1933. In the case of various other persons, who were also parties to the said suit, pattas have been issued in their favour. In respect of the petitioner, she is a decree holder of a suit arising from O.S.No.27 of 1997, which was also confirmed by a judgment and decree of the District Judge, Sivagangai in A.S.No.159 of 1998. Apart from this, she has also a judgment and decree in her favour in O.S.No.78 of 2006, on the file of Sub Court, Devakottai. The said judgments and decrees have not been considered by the 1^st respondent, while passing the impugned order. Hence, he would pray for setting aside the order and remit back to the 1^st respondent to dispose of her application, after considering the various judgment and

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶24

decree passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

3.The learned Special Government pleader would contend that

¶26

since the suit of the year 1933 is still pending, it is difficult for the 1^st respondent to decide the issue further, to grant patta in favour of other persons, who were also parties to the suit.

¶27

4.I have considered the arguments made by the counsel appearing on either side.

¶28

5.A perusal of the order impugned in this writ petition shows it is

¶29

bereft of any material. The 1^st respondent has not adverted to the various materials submitted by the petitioner.

¶30

6.In the light of the same, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the 1^st respondent and remit the matter back to his file to consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶34

7.In view of the above observations, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1^st respondent for reconsideration of the petitioner's case and thereafter, pass orders on merits in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

20.12.2022

¶36

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order sbn

¶37

To The District Revenue Officer (DRO) Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶41

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶42

sbn

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶44

20.12.2022

¶45

Page 5 of 5

¶46

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

Pl. Deivanai(Died), v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pl. Deivanai(Died), v. the District Revenue Officer

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

S.Krishnamoorthy, Vs the Inspector General of

Vasuki, Vs the District Collector

Ramalingam Vs the District Collector

Hemalatha Vs the District Collector

S.Ramalingam, Vs the District Collector

Satetlite City, Anna Nagar Vs the District Collector