The High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State against a Single Judge's order granting patta to the respondents. The Court held that the essential condition of depositing the entire outstanding amount had been satisfied, though time delays existed.
No order as to costs. C.M.P. No. 6545 of 2021 was closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.No.1039 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.10.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1039 of 2021
W.A.No.1039 of 2021
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.2.2020 made in W.P.No.18526 of 2017.
For the Appellants : Mr.R.Raman Laal Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha Spl. Government Pleader
For the Respondents : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar for respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.N.Nithianandan for respondent No.4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.R.Raman Laal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants; Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3; and, Mr.N.Nithianandan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
Page 2 of 7
W.A.No.1039 of 2021
No.18526 of 2017 assailing the order dated 7.10.2016 and also sought direction against the appellants to grant necessary patta for the subject writ lands. The writ petition is allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed by the State.
appellants on the last occasion. The matter was adjourned at the request of learned Special Government Pleader for today.
made submissions.
W.A.No.1039 of 2021
relevant Government Order ended in 1976. Though the father of the writ petitioners has deposited the amount, the last installment was made only in the year 1987. The same was not permissible.
“8. It is submitted that one Landlord Krishna Gowda grandfather of the writ petitioners died during 1950 and father of the writ petitioners has subsequently applied for patta and the Board of Revenue by an order dated 29.02.1964 in Ref.No.B.P.M.287/64 directed the applicant to remit a sum of Rs.2,984/- to the District Collector and get patta under “General Category” instead of under the Estate Abolition Act 1948. Whereas the father of the writ petitioners was remitted the above said cost as ordered in the Board's order dated 29.02.1964 in different dates i.e. Rs.500/in the year 1965, Rs.1000/- on 14.02.1965, Rs.800/on 29.02.1966, Rs.594/- on 02.04.1970 and lastly Rs.100/- on 19.10.1987.”
Page 4 of 7
W.A.No.1039 of 2021
within the time.
W.A.No.1039 of 2021
lands. The learned Single Judge, as such, has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 18.10.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr
Page 6 of 7
W.A.No.1039 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
W.A.No.1039 of 2021
18.10.2023
Page 7 of 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the appeal against the Single Judge's order directing the issuance of patta.
District Revenue Officer and others
L. Sundaram and others
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
