Dismissed

P.Vasuki v. The District Registrar

Madras HC8 Dec 2023WP/24615/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking to quash communications regarding temple land registration and direct reclassification as private patta land was dismissed. The Court held that it cannot decide title disputes in writ jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to approach the competent civil court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach competent civil Court for appropriate remedy regarding title dispute.

P.Vasuki Vs The District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. No.24615 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.12.2023

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P. No.24615 of 2022 and W.M.P. No.23581 of 2022

¶7

P.Vasuki ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Registrar Administration Registration Department, Tindivanam

¶10

The Sub Registrar Office of Sub Registrar Registration Department, Vanur

¶11

The District Collector Villupuram District

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) Villupuram

¶13

The Revenue Tahsildar, Vanur

¶14

The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (HR & CE) Villupuram District

¶15

Arulmigu Konjum Kili Mariamman Temple Rep. fit person- Managing Trustee Poothurai Village Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District ... Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

1/5

¶18

W.P. No.24615 of 2022

¶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 of the impugned communication sent by the 6th respondent herein addressed to the 1st Respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka. No.10900/2020-1/A3, dated 09.12.2020, culminating into the impugned communication to the 1st Respondent herein addressed to the 2nd Respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3493/E2/2020, dated 28.12.2020 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st Respondent herein to reclassify the lands as private patta lands and revise the guideline value in the guideline value book concerning property in S.No.218/1B, measuring acres 0.87 cents in Poothurai Village, Vanur Sub-Registrar District, Tindivanam Registration District.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar

¶21

For R1 to R5 : Mr.P.Gurunathan Additional Government Pleader For R6 : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader (HR&CE) For R7 : No Appearance

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned communication sent by the 6th respondent herein, addressed to the 1st Respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.10900/2020-1/A3, dated 09.12.2020, culminating into the impugned communication to the 1st Respondent herein addressed to the 2nd Respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3493/E2/2020, dated 28.12.2020 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st Respondent

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P. No.24615 of 2022

¶27

herein to re-classify the lands as private patta lands and revise the guideline value in the guideline value book concerning property in S.No.218/1B, measuring acres 0.87 cents in Poothurai Village, Vanur Sub-Registrar District, Tindivanam Registration District.

¶28

The 6th respondent has made objection before the Sub Registrar that the property belongs to the Temple and therefore, they should not register. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is a patta land.

¶29

Since there is a title dispute, the Writ Court cannot decide the title. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent civil Court and get appropriate remedy. Consequently, W.M.P. is closed.

¶30

08.12.2023

¶31

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

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P. No.24615 of 2022

¶35

¶36

The District Registrar Administration

¶37

Registration Department, Tindivanam

¶38

The Sub Registrar Office of Sub Registrar Registration Department, Vanur

¶39

The District Collector Villupuram District

¶40

The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) Villupuram

¶41

The Revenue Tahsildar, Vanur

¶42

The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (HR & CE) Villupuram District

¶43

4/5

¶44

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

¶45

W.P. No.24615 of 2022

¶46

P.VELMURUGAN. J.

¶47

Ksa-2

¶48

W.P. No.24615 of 2022

¶49

08.12.2023

¶50

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

¶51

5/5

P.Vasuki v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Vasuki v. The District Registrar

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

Crescent Nursery & Primary Vs the District Collector

M.Arunraj Vs The Commissioner

S.Kanchana Ammal Vs The District Collector

C.Nandakumar Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Radakrishnan Vs The Special Thasildar

K.Amudhavalli Vs the Government of Puducherry Union Territory