The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a revenue authority's order including a third respondent's name in a joint patta after a final partition decree. The court held it cannot interfere in the joint patta post-decree, directing parties to seek mutation instead.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD).No.13634 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.13634 of 2013 and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2013
M.Ramasamy ... Petitioner
-vs-
Karur District.
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 25.02.2013 in the patta passbook number 4205 and quash the same
1/4
W.P(MD).No.13634 of 2013
consequently direct the second respondent herein remove the name of the third respondent and restore the original patta issued in the name of the petitioner in Patta No.3980.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian For R1 & R2 : Mr.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader For R3 to R5 : No Appearance
O R D E R
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the inclusion of the name of the third respondent in the joint patta along with the writ petitioner. Originally, the writ petitioner was granted a separate patta in Patta No.3980. However, without notice to the writ petitioner, the name of the third respondent was incorporated for the said survey number and fresh joint patta was issued in Patta No.4205. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pending writ petition, there was a decree for partition granting a share in favour of the third respondent herein. The said decree for partition was confirmed by this
2/4
W.P(MD).No.13634 of 2013
Court in A.S.No.448 of 2001, on 04.06.2015. Hence, it is clear that the third
respondent has got a share in the survey number in dispute.
3. In view of the above said facts, this Court cannot interfere in the
joint patta. After final decree proceedings, depending upon the allotment, the parties are at liberty to approach the Revenue Authorities for mutation of
revenue records.
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
21 .09.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi To
3/4
W.P(MD).No.13634 of 2013
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
W.P.(MD)No.13634 of 2013
21.09.2022
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court can interfere in the joint patta issued after a decree for partition confirming a share in favour of a third respondent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R. Ramasamy
The District Collector, Karur District
The Thasildar
R. Vengalayee @ Karuppayee
V. K. Rajendran
K. Raviraja
R. Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
