Allowed

Sahul Hameed v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Dec 2022WP(MD)/4257/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed. Court quashed an order rectifying revenue records alleging the petitioner's father was Sheik Uduman. Clarified that records must reflect Abdul Khader based on a 1969 gift deed and 1973 patta distinct from another owner named Shakul Hameed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order; directed respondents to alter revenue record entry to Shakul Hameed, S/o.Abdul Khader within 12 weeks.

Sahul Hameed Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.4257 OF 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.4257 of 2020

¶7

Sahul Hameed ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶10

The Additional Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶11

The Sub Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶12

The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Srivaikundam – 628 601, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.T6/2374/2019 dated 31.1.2020 passed by the 2^nd

¶15

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

¶16

1/5

¶17

2 W.P.(MD)NO.4257 OF 2020

¶18

respondent and to quash the same regarding the non-removal of the name of '' Sahul Hameed S/o.Sheik Uduman'' in Patta No.365 in respect of S.No.84/1 Kongarayakurichi Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District and to direct the 2^nd respondent to issue the above Patta in the name of the petitioner viz., '' Sahul Hameed S/o.Abdul Khader '' .

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.A.John Vincent

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.G.Suriyananth, Additional Government Pleader.

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶24

The only question that calls for consideration is

¶25

whether the petitioner's father's name should be mentioned

¶26

in the revenue record as Abdul Khader or Sheik Uduman.

¶27

In the impugned order, the second respondent had

¶28

taken the stand that the petitioner has not produced any antecedent document. The second respondent has adopted an erroneous approach. It is seen from the materials on record

¶29

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

¶30

2/5

¶31

3 W.P.(MD)NO.4257 OF 2020

¶32

that the petitioner is already having patta in his favour way back from the year 1973. In the said patta, the petitioner's father's name has been described as A.Khader. The initial ' A ' refers to Abdul. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws my attention to the gift deed dated 25.10.1969 executed by Abdul Khader in his favour. The said document was duly registered as document No.2459 of 1969.

¶33

From a reading of the encumbrance Register, it is obvious that the petitioner got the property only from his father. By virtue of the aforesaid document, the revenue authority had entered the name of the petitioner and described his father's name as Abdul Khader.

¶34

I fail to understand as to how Sheik Uduman got inserted in the place of Abdul Khader. In any event, there appears to be another Shakul Hameed and his father's name is Sheik Uduman. Shakul Hameed, S/o.Sheik Uduman, had given a consent letter and clarified that he has no right or interest over the property. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. This writ petition stands allowed. The respondents shall alter

¶35

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

¶36

3/5

¶37

4 W.P.(MD)NO.4257 OF 2020

¶38

the entry in the revenue record as Shakul Hameed, S/o.Abdul Khader. This shall be done within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶39

20.12.2022

¶40

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No

¶41

PMU

¶42

To:

¶43

The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶44

The Additional Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶45

The Sub Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶46

The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶47

The Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Srivaikundam – 628 601, Thoothukudi District.

¶48

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

¶49

4/5

¶50

5 W.P.(MD)NO.4257 OF 2020

¶51

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶52

PMU

¶53

W.P.(MD)No.4257 of 2020

¶54

20.12.2022

¶55

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

¶56

5/5

Sahul Hameed v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahul Hameed 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maria Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital Vs the Tamil Nadu Dr.Mgr Medical University

Karthikeyan(Proprietor) Vs the District Collector

Kalimuthu.P Vs The District Collector

Jesu Rathinam Vs Vasantha

Apex Heart Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Secretary Member

P.Chinnah, Vs the District Collector