Dismissed

D. Subbiah Kumar v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC8 Jun 2022WP(MD)/12514/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging a Revenue Divisional Officer's order cancelling subdivision and patta of the writ petitioner. The Court held that deciding rival title claims based on sale deeds is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the Revenue Officer's finding on title shall not influence the Civil Court.

D. Subbiah Kumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.12514 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.12514 of 2011 and

¶7

M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011

¶8

D.Subbiah kumar ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam,

¶11

Theni District.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Andipatti, Theni District.

¶13

D.A.Thangavel ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.5937/2011/A-1, dated 17.09.2011 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Sureshkumarissaacpaul.S For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader For R-3 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the first respondent on 17.09.2011, under which the Sub-divisions made in Sr.No.2429/4 were cancelled and consequently patta in favour of the writ petitioner was also cancelled. The first respondent has directed the second respondent to restore the patta in favour of the third respondent. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶18

According to the learned counsel of the present writ petitioner, the first respondent has recorded a finding in the impugned order that the third respondent is the owner of the disputed property and pursuant to the said finding, the subdivisions have been cancelled and the patta standing in the name of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.12514 of 2011

¶21

the petitioner has also been cancelled. Hence, he contended that the first respondent has no jurisdiction what so ever to decide about the title or confer title on the third respondent. Hence he prayed for allowing the writ petition and to restore the patta in the name of the writ petitioner.

¶22

Per contra, the learned counsel for the third respondent had contended that based upon the two sale deeds produced by the third respondent, the first respondent has proceeded to cancel the subdivisions effected and to grant patta in favour of the third respondent.

¶23

A perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order reveals the writ petitioner as well as the third respondent are making rival claims to disputed property based upon two sale deeds. The validity of these sale deeds presented by both the parties have to be adjudicated upon only by the Civil Court and the same can neither be adjudicated by Revenue authorities nor by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

In view of the above said findings, the writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the finding with regard to the title or possession rendered by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the impugned order shall not influence the Civil Court, in case if any suit is filed by either one of the parties.

¶25

With the above said observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Assistant Registrar(AD-II)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

jbr

¶30

Note :

¶31

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶32

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

¶33

2/3

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.12514 of 2011

¶35

¶36

The Revenu Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶37

The Tahsildar, Andipatti,

¶38

Theni District.

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.S.SURESH KUMAR - ISAACPAUL, Advocate ( SR-24652[F] dated 08/06/2022 )

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-24845[F] dated 09/06/2022 )

¶41

+1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-25050[F] dated 10/06/2022 )

¶42

W.P.(MD).No.12514 of 2011 08.06.2022

¶43

NSN(CO) KB(16.06.2022) 3P 6C

¶44

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

¶45

3/3

D. Subbiah Kumar v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Subbiah Kumar v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

S. Manickam @ Lakshmi, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Singapulipandian Vs the District Collector

R. Subbulakshmi, Vs the District Collector

R. Pushpam, W/O.Rajamani, Vs the State Rep. by

Sambantham, Vs the District Collector

Masjidur Rahuman Masjid, Vs the Executive Officer