Dismissed

V.Yellappa v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Aug 2023WP/1930/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order denying transfer of patta citing suppression of a Partition Deed. The Court found no infirmity in the authorities' order and held the petitioner must approach the Civil Court for partition rights. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Liberty granted to approach Competent Civil Court of Law. No order as to costs.

V.Yellappa Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP No.1930 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08-08-2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

WP No.1930 of 2021 And

¶7

WMP Nos.2179 and 2180 of 2021

V.Yellappa

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶14

4.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶15

5.Rajesh

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

WP No.1930 of 2021

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent in Pa.Mu.29344/ 2019/J2 dated 04.11.2020 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently direct the fourth respondent to issue patta in the name of the petitioner.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash

¶22

For Respondents-1 to 4 : Mr.C.Jayaprakash, Government Advocate. For Respondent-5 : Mr.R.Bharathkumar

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the second respondent-

¶25

District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri, is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

¶26

The petitioner states that the subject property originally stood

¶27

in the name of his father and he inherited the same. The patta was originally granted in the name of his father before the UDR proceedings. After the

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

WP No.1930 of 2021

¶31

UDR proceedings, the pattta was changed in the name of other persons.

¶32

The petitioner further states that his family members have

¶33

not alienated the subject property and therefore, an application was filed to transfer the patta in the name of the petitioner. Since the Original Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority rejected the claim of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed.

¶34

The findings made in the order impugned reveal that there is

¶35

a Partition Deed in respect of the subject property, which has been suppressed by the petitioner before the Authorities Competent.

¶36

The learned counsel for the fifth respondent brought to the

¶37

notice of this Court that the family Partition Deed was not produced for consideration before the Authorities and therefore, the right of other cosharers are denied. Under these circumstances, the Authorities have consistently made a finding that the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court of Law for the purpose of establishing his right.

¶38

Page 3 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

WP No.1930 of 2021

¶41

When the registered Partition Deed is in force and other co-

¶42

sharers are also entitled for the subject property, the petitioner's claim for

¶43

transfer of patta, cannot be considered and this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the orders passed by the Authorities. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for the purpose of establishing his right, if any exist based on the documents and evidences available on record.

¶44

With the above liberty, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

¶45

08-08-2023

¶46

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Svn

¶47

¶48

1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District,

¶49

Page 4 of 6

¶50

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

¶51

WP No.1930 of 2021

¶52

Krishnagiri.

¶53

2.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶54

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶55

4.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶56

Page 5 of 6

¶57

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

¶58

WP No.1930 of 2021

¶59

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Svn

WP 1930 of 2021

08-08-2023

Page 6 of 6

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

V.Yellappa v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Yellappa 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

S.Kumaravel Vs The Inspector General of Registration

U.Jinadoss, Vs The Taluk Legal Services

A.Karivardhan Vs the Sub Registrar

G.Kaliyammal Vs The District Collector

Suguna Vs The District Collector

Mr. T.Padmanaban Vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board