Disposed

K.Muthukarakkal, v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC7 Dec 2022WP(MD)/8410/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged revenue patta rectification proceedings contending an oral gift of property. The court noted patta does not confer title and observed that since civil proceedings are pending, the dispute should be resolved in the civil court before seeking mutation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of without interlocutory stay. Subject matter held to be pending in civil court. No costs. Connected connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

K.Muthukarakkal, Vs the District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2013

¶7

and

¶8

M.P.(MD).Nos.1 to 3 & 2 & 3 of 2013

¶9

W.P(MD)No.8410 of 2013:

¶10

1.K.Muthukarakkal

¶11

2.N.Pooranam (Died)

¶12

3.V.Ponselvam

¶13

4.N.Satheeshkumar ... Petitioners

¶14

(P4 impleaded as LRS vide Court Order dated 28.11.2022 in W.M.P. (MD).No.20427 of 2022 in W.P.(MD).No.8410 of 2013 by RVJ)

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶17

2.The Tahsildhar, Ilayaagudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶18

3.P.Ramasamy,

¶19

4.P.Muthu

¶20

5.P.Sethupandi

¶21

6.R.Duraipandi

¶22

7.D.Chellam

¶23

Page 1 of 10

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2018

¶26

8.M.Nagu(Died) 9.M.Kali(Died) 10.Veerapandi 11.Karuppuchamy 12.Gopi 13.Chinnaponnu @ Rajeshwari 14.Kalaiselvi 15.Sumathi 16.Karakkal 17.Tamilselvi 18.Raakku 19.Panjavarnam 20.Jayalalitha 21.Jamuna 22.Podhumponnu 23.Muthathal 24.Pushpam .. Respondents (R10 to R24 are impleaded vide Court order dated 07.12.2022 in W.M.P. (MD).No.18985 of 2022 in W.P.(MD).No.8410 of 2013 by KBJ)

¶27

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the 1^st respondent in their proceedings in g.K.gp.4-4370-2011 dated 04.04.2013 and quash the same.

¶28

For Petitioners :Mr.M.Solaisamy

¶29

For Respondents :Mr.S.Ramesh for Mr.V.Ragavashari for R3 to R7

¶30

¶31

W.P(MD)No.10084 of 2013:

¶32

Page 2 of 10

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2018

¶35

1.K.Muthukarakkal

¶36

2.N.Pooranam (Died)

¶37

3.V.Ponselvam

¶38

4.N.Satheeshkumar ... Petitioners (P4 impleaded as LRs vide Court order dated 28.11.2022 in W.M.P. (MD).No.20421 of 2021 in W.P.(MD).No.10084 of 2013 by RVJ)

¶39

Vs.

¶40

1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶41

2.The Tahsildhar, Ilayaagudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶42

3.P.Ramasamy,

¶43

4.P.Muthu 5.P.Sethupandi 6.R.Duraipandi 7.D.Chellam 8.M.Nagu(Died) 9.M.Kali(Died) 10.Veerapandi 11.Karuppuchamy 12.Gopi 13.Chinnaponnu @ Rajeshwari 14.Kalaiselvi 15.Sumathi 16.Karakkal 17.Tamilselvi 18.Raakku 19.Panjavarnam 20.Jayalalitha

¶44

Page 3 of 10

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2018

21.Jamuna

22.Podhumponnu

23.Muthathal

24.Pushpam ... Respondents (R10 to R24 are impleaded vide Court Order dated 07.12.2022 in W.M.P. (MD).No.18988 of 2022 in W.P(MD).No.10084 of 2013 by KBJ)J

¶51

¶52

For Petitioners :Mr.M.Solaisamy For Respondents :Mr.S.Ramesh for Mr.V.Ragavashari for R3 to R7

¶53

¶54

COMMON ORDER

¶55

Writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the

¶56

District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, rectifying the revenue records.

¶57

2.The petitioners, being aggrieved against the same, had

¶58

challenged this, inter alia contending that the property has been allotted to

¶59

Page 4 of 10

¶60

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

¶61

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2018

¶62

the mother of the petitioner by an oral gift by their Grand Mother. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that for inclusion of the other legal heirs of their Grand Mother in the patta, the impugned proceedings will have to be set aside.

¶63

3.Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 would submit that the properties were given a share by way of an oral partition and therefore, they are entitled to be granted with the patta.

¶64

4.At this juncture, It is also submitted by the learned counsel for

¶65

the petitioners that a civil proceedings pending between the parties in respect of the same property.

¶66

5.I am of the considered view that the patta is a revenue patta,

¶67

which does not confer any title on the parties and in view of the civil proceedings pending between the parties, after completion of the same, the parties can approach the revenue authorities to mutate the patta, as per the

¶68

Page 5 of 10

¶69

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

¶70

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2018

¶71

result of the civil proceedings.

¶72

6.In view of the above observations, the impugned proceedings in

¶73

these writ petitions shall be the subject matter of the civil proceedings between the parties. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶74

07.12.2022

¶75

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

¶76

sbn

¶77

¶78

1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶79

2.The Tahsildhar, Ilayaagudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶80

Page 6 of 10

¶81

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

¶82

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2018

¶83

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶84

sbn

¶85

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 to 3 & 2 & 3 of 2013

¶86

07.12.2022

¶87

Page 7 of 10

¶88

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

¶89

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2018

¶90

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2013

¶91

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶92

The matter is listed today under the caption “for being mentioned”

¶93

at the instance of the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶94

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶95

3.The learned counsel appearing on either side submitted that the

¶96

the submission made on behalf of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as submissions made by the respondents 3 to 5, in Paragraph No. 3. Hence, request this Court to modify accordingly.

¶97

In view of the above, the Registry is directed to issue fresh

¶98

order copy after incorporating the following changes in the paragraph No.3 of the order made in W.P.(MD).Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2018, dated 07.12.2022:

¶99

Page 8 of 10

¶100

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

¶101

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2018

¶102

petitioner would submit that the properties were

¶103

given a share by way of an oral partition and

¶104

therefore, they are entitled to be granted with the

¶105

patta”.

¶106

5.This Court further direct the Registry is to verify the vakalat

¶107

filed on behalf of other respondents, if any, and include the name of the learned counsel who have filed the vakalat.

¶108

21.12.2022

¶109

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking order sbn

¶110

Page 9 of 10

¶111

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

¶112

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2018

¶113

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶114

sbn

¶115

W.P.(MD)Nos.8410 & 10084 of 2013

¶116

21.12.2022

¶117

Page 10 of 10

¶118

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

K.Muthukarakkal, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Muthukarakkal, 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

Muthukaruppan @ Velayutham, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Muthuselvi, Vs the Registrar of

Madhanaperumal, Vs the Zonal Manager

Maathooran, S/O Kalasalingam, Vs the District Collector

Sengutuvan, Vs the Managing Director

Mrs. Kursheed Sharfudeen, Vs the Commissioner