Disposed

Rajathi a v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC6 Jul 2022WP(MD)/3489/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the cancellation of a patta issued in their favor. The court noted pending civil suits and directed that revenue records should reflect the property's character without entering names, leaving the final outcome to the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Direction to reflect property character as Natham without entering names in revenue records until civil suits conclude.

Rajathi a Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.3489 OF 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3489 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3059, 3062 & 3064 of 2022

¶7

Rajathi

¶8

Saraswathi ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Maduria West Taluk, Madurai District.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai, Madurai.

¶13

A.P.Kandhasamy

¶14

M.Kathirvel ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to revert back the patta in the petitioner's name in respect of the properties comprised in S.No.46/22, 46/23, Thuvariman Village, Madurai District, classified as ' Natham Poramboke ' in consonance with the order dated

¶16

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

¶17

1/5

¶18

2 W.P.(MD)NO.3489 OF 2022

¶19

15.12.2021 made in W.P.(MD)No.5120 of 2019 on the file of this Court and consequently forbear respondents 4 and 5 from putting up any construction in the property comprised in S.No.46/22, 46/23, Thuvariman Village, Madurai, without any valid patta.

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh

¶21

For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.G.Sivaraja, Government Advocate.

¶22

For R-4 & R-5 : Mr.G.Sakthi Rao

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶26

2 . The property in question is a Natham land. The

¶27

Tahsildar, Madurai West Taluk, issued patta in favour of the writ petitioners. The same was questioned by the fourth respondent. Accepting the claim of the fourth respondent, patta issued in favour of the petitioners was cancelled. Finding was given that the fourth respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.(MD)No.5120 of 2019. The said writ 2/5

¶28

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

¶29

3 W.P.(MD)NO.3489 OF 2022

¶30

petition was partly allowed on 15.12.2021. While confirming the order of the first respondent 07.02.2019, cancellation of the patta was set aside.

¶31

3 . The contention of the petitioners is that when the

¶32

order of cancellation of the patta has been set aside, the natural and logical consequence is that the name of the petitioners should be re-entered in the revenue record. Seeking the said relief, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶33

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel on either side submitted that the following suits are pending in connection with the petition mentioned properties:-

¶34

a) O.S.No.71 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirumangalam.

¶35

b) O.S.No.232 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Thirumangalam.

¶36

c) O.S.No.84 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirumangalam, filed by the petitioners.

¶37

3/5

¶38

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

¶39

4 W.P.(MD)NO.3489 OF 2022

¶40

5. When the civil suits had already been instituted, it may not be appropriate to make any entry in the revenue records. I therefore direct that the revenue records will reflect the character of the property as Natham and it is not necessary to enter the name of any person in the revenue record. Based on the outcome of the aforesaid suits, mutation can be made in the revenue records in respect of the petition mentioned land. It is needless to state that even if any finding has been rendered by the revenue authority or even if the entries are made in the revenue records, the jurisdictional civil Court alone is competent to take the final call in the matter.

¶41

6 . This writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶42

06.07.2022

¶43

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No

¶44

PMU

¶45

4/5

¶46

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

¶47

5 W.P.(MD)NO.3489 OF 2022

¶48

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶49

PMU

¶50

To:

¶51

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District.

¶52

The Tahsildar, Maduria West Taluk, Madurai District.

¶53

The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai, Madurai.

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.3489 of 2022

¶55

06.07.2022

¶56

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

¶57

5/5

Rajathi a v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajathi a 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

Abs Xpress Pvt. Ltd.., Vs Airport Authority of India

Kannathal.S Vs The District Registrar

Kaleel Rahman Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Bhuvaneswari, Vs K.P.Karthikeyan I.A.S.

Arulanandu P Vs The District Collector

Rajeswari Vs The Sub Registrar