Disposed

K.Tamizharasan v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Dec 2023WP/10679/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed against a Wakf Board's recommendation to grant patta. The Court held that since a dispute exists regarding the property's nature and eviction proceedings are pending, no relief could be granted at this stage. The petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed; Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

K.Tamizharasan Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10679 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.12.2023

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P.No.10679 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.10312 of 2022

K.Tamizharasan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri

¶11

The Tahsildar

¶12

Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶13

The Estate Officer

¶14

Wakf House No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,

¶15

Chennai - 600 001

¶16

The Muthawali

¶17

Khairathi Personal Inam Waqf K.Naduhalli Village, Dharmapuri District

¶18

The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri ... Respondents

¶19

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2729/12/M2/jg[hp dated 10.03.2022 and quash the same and consequently, forbearing the 1st and 2nd respondents from granting the patta in favor of the 4th respondent.

¶20

1/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.10679 of 2022

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.Ragul Adhithya

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy Additional Government Pleader for R1, R2 and R5 Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen for R3 Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed for R4

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified

¶27

Mandamus to call for the records in the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2729/12/M2/jg[hp dated 10.03.2022 and quash the same and consequently, forbearing the 1st and 2nd respondents from granting the patta in favor of the 4th respondent.

¶28

The petitioner purchased the subject properties in the year 2010 and

¶29

prior to purchase of the said properties, the Settlement Officer had initiated proceedings and conducted enquiry with the revenue officials. Upon the satisfaction of the fulfilment of the conditions stated in the Act, 1963, the Settlement Officer was pleased to grant Ryotwari Patta in the year 1967 in favour of the petitioner's Vendor's ancestors confirming their title over the said properties. That being the case, the 3rd respondent/Wakf Board initiated

¶30

2/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.10679 of 2022

¶33

proceedings and issued notice on 13.08.2021 under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), Act 1975. Pursuant to which, the 3rd respondent/Wakf Board has sent a communication to the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the case of granting patta in favour of the 4th respondent. Challenging the said communication, the present petition is filed.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before making

¶35

the recommendation, the 3rd respondent/Wakf Board had not issued notice to the petitioner and the petitioner was not heard and without giving opportunity to the petitioner, the recommendation has been made arbitrarily. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent has to be quashed.

¶36

The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/Wakf Board submitted that already the eviction proceedings were initiated and the petitioner without submitting relevant documents, has filed the writ petition before this Court and also got an interim stay due to which, they are unable to arrive at a conclusion. The learned counsel further submitted that it is only a simple recommendation which is nothing to do with the pending proceedings.

¶37

3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.10679 of 2022

¶40

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶41

Admittedly, there is a dispute as to whether the subject property is a

¶42

Wakf property or a private property. Further, the eviction proceedings have already been initiated and the same is pending. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner is at liberty to appear and make all his submissions before the pending proceedings.

¶43

With the above liberty, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶44

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶45

20.12.2023 (2/2)

¶46

ksa-2 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.10679 of 2022

¶50

¶51

The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri

¶52

The Tahsildar Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶53

The Estate Officer Wakf House No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai - 600 001

¶54

The Muthawali Khairathi Personal Inam Waqf K.Naduhalli Village, Dharmapuri District

¶55

The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri

¶56

5/6

¶57

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

W.P.No.10679 of 2022

P.VELMURUGAN. J.

Ksa-2

W.P.No.10679 of 2022

20.12.2023 (2/2)

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

¶64

6/6

K.Tamizharasan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Tamizharasan 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

Baskaran Vs The Chennai Metro Rail Limited

Mohammed Riyasatullah Vs State of Tamil Nadu

A/m.Sri Varadharaja Perumal Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Jayalakshmi Vs the Union Territory of Puducherry

M.Perumal Vs the District Collector

Matheswari Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer