Disposed

Lakshmi v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC11 Sept 2023WP/17171/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging an order cancelling patta granted to the petitioner's deceased husband. The Court noted the absence of the petitioner and the specific classification of the land as Temple property, ruling that it was unable to deal with the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Lakshmi Vs the District Revenue Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

2023:MHC:4620

¶2

W.P.No.17171 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 11.09.2023

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

W.P.No.17171 of 2013

and

M.P.No.1 of 2013

Lakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Salem District, Salem.

¶14

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankari Taluk Office, Sankari, Salem District.

¶15

3.The Thasildar, Edapaddy Taluk Office, Edapaddy, Salem District.

¶16

4.Periyandachi Amman Koil, Iruppali Post, Edapady Taluk, Salem District, Rep. by its Trustee S.Kandasamy S/o Sadayappa Pandaram,

¶17

1/44-A, Iruppali and Post, Edapady Taluk, Salem District.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

[R4 impleaded vide order dated 18.08.2020 made in MP.1 of 2014 in WP.No.17171 of 2013]

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.17171 of 2013

¶23

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, c alling for the records pertaining to the Na.Ka.No.41782/2013/G1 dated 18.01.2013 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents 1 & 3 to conduct de-novo enquiry after affording opportunity to the petitioner

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For R1 to R3 : Mr.E.Sundaram Government Advocate For R4 : Mr.M.Ramalingam

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The order passed by the District Revenue Officer in proceedings dated 18.01.2013 cancelling the patta granted originally in the name of the husband of the petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the

¶28

petitioner died.

¶29

Page 2 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.17171 of 2013

¶32

However, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of

¶33

the State brought to the notice of this Court that the subject land is classified

¶34

as 'Tharisu' and the said land is left for the usage of the 4^th respondent / Temple. Pertinently, the 3^rd respondent in his counter has stated that the petitioner’s husband was working as Village Assistant from the year 1982. During that period the said Narayanan the petitioner’s husband had manipulated the records and created patta in his favour to the land, which belonged to Periyandachi Amman Kovil, which has been classified as 'tharisu' in the revenue records.

¶35

In view of the fact that the land has been classified as Tharisu and an allegation of manipulation of records stated by the Tahsildar in his counter, the petitioner cannot seek the relief. Since the petitioner had died during the pendency of the writ petition, this Court is unable to deal with the case on merits. If at all the legal heirs of the petitioner are able to establish their title or ownership, they are at liberty to approach the Revenue Authorities or the Civil Court of Law as the case may be.

¶36

Page 3 of 5

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.17171 of 2013

¶39

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶40

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶41

11.09.2023

¶42

Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶43

¶44

1.The District Revenue Officer, Salem District, Salem.

¶45

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankari Taluk Office, Sankari, Salem District.

¶46

3.The Thasildar, Edapaddy Taluk Office, Edapaddy, Salem District.

¶47

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

¶48

Page 4 of 5

¶49

W.P.No.17171 of 2013

¶50

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶51

Jeni

¶52

W.P.No.17171 of 2013

¶53

11.09.2023

¶54

Page 5 of 5

¶55

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

Lakshmi v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Jayaseelan, Vs The District collector

S.Jayaseelan, Vs The District collector

Ootacamund Gymkhana Club Vs State of Tamilnadu

Paramakudi Ilayankudi Taluk Vs the Inspector General of

Mrs.Sivabagyam Vs the District Collector

N.Sathyanarayana Vs The District Revenue officer (La)