Disposed

Hemalatha v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Dec 2022WP(MD)/19838/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside the impugned order that fixed an unauthorized time limit of 30 days for filing a civil suit regarding a cancelled patta and property mutation, allowing the petitioner to approach the civil court while excluding the pendency of this writ petition from limitation. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

The portion fixing a 30-day time limit for filing a civil suit was set aside; the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court with limitation excluded.

Hemalatha Vs the District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.19838 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.19838 of 2013 and

¶7

M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2013, 1 and 2 of 2014

Hemalatha

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai Revenue Division, Sivagangai District.

¶14

4.The Tahsildar, Tirupathur, Sivagangai District.

¶15

5.Subramaniyapillai

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the

¶18

1/5

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.19838 of 2013.

¶21

Pa.Mu.B1-12703-2013 dated 28.11.2013 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and to quash the same as illegal.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajamohan For R1 to R4 : Mr.V.OM.Prakash Government Advocate For R5 : Mr.M.Subash Babu

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner today had filed a memo stating that in spite of the repeated requests, there has been no communication from the petitioner and that he had filed a memo reporting 'no instructions'.

¶25

2.The writ petition is challenging the order passed by the second respondent, wherein he had cancelled the patta that was issued in favour of the petitioner and mutated the same in favour of the fifth respondent. In the order impugned, the first respondent had informed that if they are aggrieved against the same, they could approach the civil Court within a period of 30 days.

¶26

2/5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.19838 of 2013.

¶29

3.Rule 4 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 mandates that if there is a dispute with regard to the ownership of the property, the same shall not be adjudicated upon by the revenue authorities and will have to relegate the parties concerned to file a civil suit. Unfortunately, in this case, the revenue authorities have entered upon the disputed ownership.

¶30

4.Be that as it may, it is always open to the parties to approach the civil Court for redressal of their grievances. As stated in the impugned order, it is for the aggrieved party to file a civil suit. But however, the time limit fixed by the first respondent is without any authority. Therefore, the said portion fixing the time limit of 30 days is set aside and the aggrieved person, namely the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil Court. If the petitioner approaches the civil Court, the period between the date filing of this writ petition and the date of this order shall be excluded in accordance with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for computation of limitation.

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.19838 of 2013.

¶34

5.With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However,

¶35

there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶36

Speaking : Yes / No 20.12.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mm

¶37

¶38

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶39

2.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶40

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai Revenue Division, Sivagangai District.

¶41

4.The Tahsildar, Tirupathur, Sivagangai District.

¶42

4/5

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.19838 of 2013.

¶45

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶46

¶47

W.P.(MD) No.19838 of 2013

¶48

20.12.2022

¶49

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

¶50

5/5

Hemalatha v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemalatha 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

S.Krishnamoorthy, Vs the Inspector General of

Vasuki, Vs the District Collector

Ramalingam Vs the District Collector

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

S.Ramalingam, Vs the District Collector

Satetlite City, Anna Nagar Vs the District Collector