Allowed

Selvarani, W/O.Ganapathi v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 Aug 2023WP(MD)/16293/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench set aside a mutation order that cancelled the petitioner's patta name as it violated natural justice by failing to give notice. The case was remitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass a final order on merits after giving notice to all stakeholders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned mutation order set aside; matter remitted to Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai to issue notice to stakeholders and pass final order on merits within 12 weeks.

Selvarani, W/O.Ganapathi Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.16293 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.16293 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015

Selvarani

... Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Karaikudi.

¶13

4.Murugesan ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned mutation of patta by the third respondent in favour of the fourth respondent in Patta No.2231 from the name of the petitioner and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the properties comprised in S.Nos. 185/1 and 185/2, Sannavanam Village,

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶16

W.P(MD)No.16293 of 2015

¶17

Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District to the Patta No.820 in the name of the petitioner.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manikandan for Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3 Mr.S.Krishnan for Mr.A.Muralikumar for R.4

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

The petitioner's name was reflected in the revenue record as pattadhar

¶22

in respect of the petition mentioned properties. Without putting the petitioner on notice, it was cancelled by the impugned proceedings. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶23

It is beyond dispute that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. On this ground it is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside.

¶24

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

¶25

2/5

¶26

W.P(MD)No.16293 of 2015

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submitted that the petitioner filed O.S.No.92 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikudi seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The fourth respondent herein figured as the first defendant in the suit. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed A.S.No.35 of 2012 on the file of Sub Court, Devakottai. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 11.01.2013. However, the matter is presently pending S.A(MD)No.226 of 2013. An interim injunction was granted for the petitioner on 28.03.2013 in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, what was granted by this Court is only an order of interim injunction. The judgments passed by the Court's below have not been stayed. Therefore, the finding that the signature attributed to the father of the fourth respondent is a piece of forgery still holds good.

¶28

From a reading of the materials on record, I am satisfied that the petitioner had purchased not from all the legal heirs of the original pattadhars

¶29

but only from some of them. This is of course subject to the outcome of S.A(MD)No.226 of 2013 and this finding of fine is only a tentative observation based on the present findings holding the field. Though the mutation appears to

¶30

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

¶31

3/5

¶32

W.P(MD)No.16293 of 2015

¶33

have been made by the third respondent, the matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent. The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai shall issue notice to all the stake holders and contesting parties and pass final order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks after the petitioner files an appeal. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter.

¶34

This writ petition is allowed on these terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

08.08.2023

¶36

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No MGA

¶37

¶38

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶39

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai.

¶40

3.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Karaikudi.

¶41

4/5

¶42

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

¶43

W.P(MD)No.16293 of 2015

¶44

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶45

MGA

¶46

W.P(MD)No.16293 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶47

08.08.2023

¶48

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

¶49

5/5

Selvarani, W/O.Ganapathi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvarani, W/O.Ganapathi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Latha Vs State of Tamil Nadu

G.Shenbagaraj Vs State of Tamil Nadu

R. Venkatraman, Vs M. Rajesekaran

C.M. Veeraiah, Vs the Commissioner

Punitha @ Manimegalai @ Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Jacob Daniel Vs the Sub Registrar