Disposed

Rm.Subramanian(Died), Chellam, v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC18 Oct 2023WP(MD)/21340/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a patta grant. The Court directed parties to pursue their remedy in a long-pending civil suit regarding the property. The Subordinate Judge was ordered to conclude the trial within four months, and alienation of the property was restrained.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition disposed of with liberty to parties to work out remedy in the pending suit. Trial directed to conclude within four months. Alienation by fourth respondent restrained.

Rm.Subramanian(Died), Chellam, Vs the District Revenue… — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.21340 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.21340 of 2014 and

¶7

MP(MD)Nos.1 of 2014, 1 of 2015

1.Chellam

2.Jeyameena

3.Parthasarathy

4.Alagurajan

5.Ravichandran

6.Karthikeswari

7.Nirmaladevi Rep. by her Guardian, Chellam / first petitioner .. Petitioners

¶15

[P.1 to P.7 are substituted vide order dated 01.06.2023]

¶16

¶17

1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

WP(MD)No.21340 of 2014

¶21

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶22

3.The Tahsildar, Melur, Madurai District.

¶23

4.Shanthi

¶24

5.Muthu Palaniappan

¶25

6.Muthuramalingam

¶26

7.Muthuvenkatachalapathy

¶27

.. Respondents

¶28

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶29

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 28.11.2014 of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.51336/2011/G2, quash the same and consequently, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders relegating the parties to work out their remedy before the civil Court.

¶30

2/6

¶31

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

¶32

WP(MD)No.21340 of 2014

¶33

For Petitioners : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan

¶34

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3

¶35

Mr.D.Venkatesh for R.4

¶36

No appearance for R.5 to R.7

¶37

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This writ petition is filed as against the orders of the District Revenue Officer granting patta in favour of the fourth respondent.

¶40

2.The subject property belongs to one Ramakrishnan. The original

¶41

writ petitioner, Subramaniam, is the son of Ramakrishnan, through the first wife. Subramaniam is no more and his legal heirs are now substituted as petitioners in this writ petition. The respondents 5 to 7 are the sons of Ramakrishnan, through the second wife. There was a dispute between Ramakrishnan and Subramaniam and a partition suit came to be filed. In the partition suit, a finality has been arrived and Subramaniam got 'A' Schedule property and Ramakrishnan got 'B' Schedule property.

¶42

3/6

¶43

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

¶44

WP(MD)No.21340 of 2014

¶45

3.After the demise of Ramakrishnan, Subramaniam claimed the share

¶46

on 'B' Schedule property as a coparcener. However, the Tahsildar, without considering the same, has passed an order granting patta in favour of the fourth respondent, who purchased the property from the respondents 5 to 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer have also confirmed the same, without any application of mind.

¶47

4.During the course of hearing, it is represented that with regard to the right of Subramaniam on the 'B' Schedule property, the seventh respondent, one of the sons of Ramakrishnan through the second wife, has already filed a suit before the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai, in O.S.No. 478 of 1988.

¶48

5.Since on the very same subject, a suit has already been filed and the suit is pending from the year 1988, this Court dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the parties to work out their remedy in the suit. Considering the fact that the suit is pending from the year 1988, the

¶49

4/6

¶50

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

¶51

WP(MD)No.21340 of 2014

¶52

learned Subordinate Judge is directed to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis and conclude the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the fourth respondent shall not create any alienation based on the patta issued by the revenue officials.

¶53

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶54

Index : Yes / No 18.10.2023 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes gk

¶55

Note:

¶56

Mark a copy of this order to The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

¶57

¶58

1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶59

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶60

3.The Tahsildar, Melur, Madurai District.

¶61

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

¶62

5/6

¶63

WP(MD)No.21340 of 2014

¶64

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶65

¶66

WP(MD)No.21340 of 2014

¶67

18.10.2023

¶68

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

¶69

6/6

Rm.Subramanian(Died), Chellam, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rm.Subramanian(Died), Chellam, 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

N. Tamilarasan, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Alagumalai Vs the Regional Manager

K.P. Jeyapaul Asan, Vs the District Collector

P.Chellammal, Vs District Revenue Officer

M/S V.K.P.K. Arivithurai and Vs Customs , Excise and Service

C. Chellam, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu