Dismissed

Ramson Farm Thro Its Partners v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC24 Jan 2022WP(MD)/7007/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking restoration of land patta, the Madurai Bench dismissed the petition as lacking merit. The court noted that lower revenue authorities had correctly found that the respondent's name was misappropriated by a dealer, leading to an error in assigning the land to the petitioner. The order affirmed that no further judicial review was required.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Ramson Farm Thro Its Partners Vs the District Revenue… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.7007 of 2009

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.01.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.7007 of 2009 and M.P(MD)No.3 of 2009

¶7

Ramson Farm through its partners 1.R.Muthukrishnan 2.R.Narayanan office at Door No.2, A.P.Mada Street, Tirunelveli Town ...Petitioners Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli. 3.The Deputy Tahsildar, Tirunelveli Region. 4.K.Murugan (died) 5.M.Dhanalakshmi 6.M.Vishwa Sundari 7.M.Sri Venkatesh 8.M.Vijayakumar ...Respondents **(R5 to R8 are substituted for the deceased fourth respondent vide order dated 04.12.2018 in WMP(MD).21522 of 2018)*

¶8

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

¶9

1/5

¶10

W.P(MD)No.7007 of 2009

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in ref. Na.Ka.Si.Ma.No.AA2/20/2007, dated 26.05.2009, confirming the impugned order of the second respondent in ref.Na.Ka.A3/Me.Mu 23/2006, dated 03.11.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to restore the patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of land measuring 4.77 acres in S.No.40/1 Karuvanallur Village, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Let me not keep the Writ Petition pending any further.

¶14

2.Mr.Siva Subramanian, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment, claiming that a document will have to be filed to adjudicate the issues raised. But, the documents filed along with the Writ Petition are more than sufficient.

¶15

3.I am not able to understand why the writ petition has been pending for more than one decade. The nature of the documents, which are now sought to be produced has not been disclosed.

¶16

4.The fourth respondent/K.Murugan, S/o.Kasiviswanathan in the Writ Petition is said to be an Ex-service man. Recognizing his services, in accordance with the rules, lands in Punjai S.No.40/1, measuring to an extent of 4.77 acres in Karuvanallur Village in Tirunelveli District, had been assigned, on 23.07.1976. The authorities confirmed such assignment of the lands to the fourth respondent. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the fourth respondent had unfortunately died and the legal representatives had been impleaded as 5 to 8 respondents.

¶17

5.While matters stood, a sale deed had been presented and registered with respect to the very same lands, by one K.Murugan, son of Kanthiah on 29.06.1995, in favour of Premthi An.Vargese, daughter of T.P.Varghese, residing at Mannar Mala, Puthan Peediga Village, Pathanam Thitta District, Kerala State.

¶18

6.The Registering authorities have been misled by the name Murugan with initial as K, the name of the father Kanthiah had used https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

2/5

¶20

W.P(MD)No.7007 of 2009

¶21

to mislead in the said sale deed by mentioning the name Murugan, son of Kanthiah. The particular lands assigned to the fourth respondent, had been dealt with and sold and the sale deed had been registered. Thereafter, the property was again dealt with by a further sale deed, dated 13.12.2004, wherein, the aforesaid purchaser Premthi An.Vargese had sold the property to the petitioners herein. When the sale deed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner itself is under a cloud of suspicion, the petitioners herein cannot claim any further or better title to the lands.

¶22

7.Noting this particular fact, the patta which was mutated in the name of the petitioners was cancelled and the patta was restored to the name of the fourth respondent/Murugan, son of Kasiviswanathan/Ex-service man. Questioning that particular order, the matter went up before the second respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer. As a fact, the Revenue Divisional Officer had given the following findings:

¶23

' Kd;zs; ,uhQqt tPuh; Md kDjhh; jpU.KUfd; j-bg/fhrptp!;tehjd; vd;gtUf;F epy cr;rtuk;gpy; 27/4/1976y; tpd;! ; bra;J. Mjd;go vk;/Mh;/ IV -21- jpUbey;ntyp. ehs; : 23/8/1976 md;W gotk; F tpjp 8(6) brd;id epyr;rPh;jpUj;jk ; (Disposal of surplus land) tpjpfs; 1965d;go jpUbey;ntyp tl;lk ; fUtey;Yhh; fpuhkk;. g[ Q; ir g[y vz; 40-1y; Vf;fu ; 4/77 brd;l ; epykjpg;g [ tNy; bra;jjd; mog;gilapy; xg;gil bra;ag ;gl ;Ls ;sJ vd;gJ bjspthf bjhpfpwJ/ mjidj; bjhlh;e ;J jdp jhrpy;jhh;. epy clik nkk;ghLj; jpl;lk ; jpUbey;ntyp K:yk ; jPh;it brYj;jp mj;jhl;rp bgw;Ws ;shh;/ nkw;go Mjhu';fspd;go jpUbey;ntyp tl;l mYtyfj;jpy; gl;lh vz; : 236d;go Kufd; fzzp gl;lht[k ; bgw;Ws ;shh;/

¶24

Mdhy; vjph;kDjhh;fs ; jhth g[yj ;jpw ;F vt;tpj chpika[k ; ,y;yhj KUfd; vd;w bgaUila ntW vthplnkh fpiuak; bgw;Ws ;sJ bjspthf bjhpa tUfpwJ/ fpiua Mtz vz; : 1654-95 ehs; 30/6/95y; cs;s fpiuajhh; ifbahg;gKk;. epy xg;gil bgw;Ws ;s cz;ikahd egh; jpU/nf/KUfd; vd;gth; bgw;Ws ;s F got xg;gil Mtzj;jpy; fz;Ls ;s ifbahg;gj ;jpypUe;J Kw;wpYk; ntWg;gl ;Ls ;sJ nkw;fz ;l fpiua Mtzj;jpy ; fz;l epyk; fpiuajhuUf;F vt;tpj ghj;jpak; vd;gjw;fhd tptu';fs ; fpiua Mtzj;jpy; tpsf;fg ;gltpy;iy/ jhth g[yj ;jpw;F cz;ikahd chpikahsh; Kd;zs ; ,uhQqt tPuh; Md fhrptp!;ehjd; Fkhuh; jpU/KUfd; vd;gJk; bjspthf bjhpa tUfpwJ/ '

¶25

8.This order was questioned by filing a further appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli. The said officer also, confirmed the aforementioned finding of fact. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:

¶26

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

¶27

3/5

¶28

W.P(MD)No.7007 of 2009

¶29

'Mf g[y vz; 40-1 1/93/00 bcwf;nlh; epyk; epy cr;rtuk;g [ rl;lj;jpd; fPH; epyxg;gil tH';fpa epyk; vd;gij rPuha;t [ kDjhUk; xg;g [f ; bfhz;Ls ;shh;/ vjph;kDjhh; jug;gpy; jhf;fy ; bra;ag ;gl ;l Mtz';fspy; jpUbey;ntyp cjtp epy rPh;jpUj;j Mizah; tH';fpa epy xg;gil Miz gotk; vg;/ kw;Wk ; , Mfpatw;iw M$h; bra;Js ;shh;/ epyf; fpiuak; brYj;jpa bry;yhd; urPJ vz; 407. ehs; 12/11/1987 kw;Wk ; 06/05/1991. 25/06/1999?k; njjpfspy; muRf;F gzk; brYj;jpa urPJfis M$h; bra;Js ;shh;/ 23/11/1986?k; tUlj;jpy ; epy clik nkk;ghl ;Lj ; jpl;lj ;jpy ; jdp tl;lhl;rpah; tH';fpa gl;lh efy; kw;Wk ; epyj; jPh;it brYj;jpa urPJ Mfpatw;iwa[k ; M$h; bra;Js ;shh;/ ,jd; K:yk ; jpUbey;ntyp khtl;lk ; jpUbey;ntyp tl;lk ; fUtey;Yhh; fpuhkk; g[y vz; 40-1 tp!;jPuzk; 1.93.00 bcwf;nlh; epyk; rPuha;t [ vjph;kDjhUf;F ghj;jpag;gl ;lJ vd;gJ epU:gzk; MfpwJ/ jpUbey;ntyp nfhl;lhl;rpah; gpwg;gpj;j gl;lh khw;w nky;KiwaPl;L cj;jutpy; Fwf;fpljf;f tifapy; rPuha;t [ kDjhh; Mtz';fis VJk; ,e;ePjpkd;wj ;jpy ; jhf;fy ; bra;atpy;iy/

¶30

vdnt. JpUbey;ntyp nfhl;lhl;rpah; gpwg;gpj;j gl;lh khw;wk ; nky;KiwaPL cj;jut[ e/f/m3-nk/K/23-2006 ehs; 3/11/2007 cj;jutpid cWjp bra;Jk ; ,r;rPuha;t [ kDtpid js;Sgo bra;Jk ; MizapLfpd;nwd;/'

¶31

9.These are the issues purely on fact. However, one fact stands out, namely, that the name of the fourth respondent had been misappropriated and had been used for executing a sale deed and the lands which were allotted to him had also been taken away by falsely using the name, Murugan, son of Kanthiah.

¶32

10.This fact which had been recorded by the respondents herein, in their orders. In the Writ Court, this issue can never be reexamined since judicial review will lie not in the nature of the order passed but, in the process undertaken before passing such orders. There is no complaint by the petitioners that they were not heard.

¶33

11.Therefore, I find no merit in the Writ Petition. I am also informed that a suit has been filed in O.S.No.665 of 2009, for declaration and permanent injunction and thereafter, a first appeal was filed and the parties are also interlocked before this Court in S.A(MD)No.733 of 2020.

¶34

12.However, this Court is only concerned with nature of entries made in cancelling the patta in favour of the petitioners and restoring the patta to the fourth respondent which order on the face https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

4/5

¶36

W.P(MD)No.7007 of 2009

¶37

it is correct since the fourth respondent's land had been taken away, rather grabbed away by one Murugan, Son of Kanthiah, who had executed a sale deed in favour of the vendors of the petitioner.

¶38

13.The Writ Court can never keep its eyes closed when presented with these facts.

¶39

14.With the above observation, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶40

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶41

// True Copy //

¶42

/ /2022

¶43

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶44

¶45

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID19 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.

¶46

¶47

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli

¶48

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli.

¶49

3.The Deputy Tahsildar, Tirunelveli Region.

¶50

+1 CC to M/s.A.SIVA SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-2239[F] dated 24/01/2022 )

¶51

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-2414[F] dated 25/01/2022 )

¶52

+1 CC to M/s.J.C.RATHNAVEL PANDIAN, Advocate ( SR-2532[F] dated 27/01/2022 )

¶53

W.P(MD).No.7007 of 2009 24.01.2022

¶54

nsn(CO) TR(07.02.2022) 5P 7C

¶55

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

¶56

5/5

Ramson Farm Thro Its Partners v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramson Farm Thro Its Partners v. the District Revenue 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

Sornam.M Vs the Union of India Represented by Its

Bose K Vs the Tahsildhar

Seethaiammal Vs the District Collector

Sundarammal S Vs the District Collector

Aravan Vs the District Collector

Saraswathy Vs the District Collector