Allowed

P.Kalaiyarasi v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Dec 2023WP(MD)/21479/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's patta request solely based on a third-party objection. The court held that the petitioner possessed the natham land for 30 years as the late husband's estate and directed the Tahsildar to issue the patta.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; second respondent directed to issue patta in favour of the petitioner.

P.Kalaiyarasi Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.21479 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.21479 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.17867 of 2023

P.Kalaiyarasi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Tenkasi District.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tenkasi District.

¶12

3.The Jamapanthiyalar, Taluk Office,

¶13

5GGW+WR3, Thiruvengadam Road, Near New Bus Stand, Sankarankoil, Tenkasi District.

¶14

4.Varatharajan ... Respondents

¶15

(R4 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 10.10.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.21749 of 2023 by GRSJ)

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(MD)No.21479 of 2023

¶20

call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in REVSKL/2027/2023-B3 in Jamabanthi Manu 34/5515966 dated 13.06.2023 on the file of 2nd Respondent and quash the same as illegal and further directing the 2nd respondent to grant patta in petitioner's name for the property situated in Shenbagapuram, Periyur Revenue Village, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tenkasi District comprised in S.No.854/3 for a total extent of 00086 sqmt by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 24.05.2023.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kanagaraj

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate for R1 to R3.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3. Though the fourth respondent has been served and his name is printed in the cause title, he has not chosen to enter appearance.

¶25

2.The only relief sought for by the petitioner is for grant of patta in

¶26

her favour in respect of the petition mentioned premises. The petitioner's request was negatived since the fourth respondent had lodged his objection.

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.21479 of 2023

¶30

3.The fourth respondent is none other than the brother of the

¶31

petitioner's husband. The petitioner categorically states that for the last 30 years, she is residing in the petition mentioned house. The house was constructed by her husband late.Ponnudurai. He passed away in the year 2018. The electricity service connection has been obtained and it is in the name of Ponnudurai. The property has been assessed to house tax. The assessment is in the name of Ponnudurai.

¶32

4.The land in question is a natham land. Therefore, the occupant is

¶33

entitled to patta. The materials on record clearly show the petitioner's possession and enjoyment. The fourth respondent has not appeared before this Court to controvert the petitioner's assertion.

¶34

5.Merely because objection has been received, the petitioner's request could not have been rejected. Since in the impugned order, the only reason set out for rejecting the petitioner's request is the objection received from the fourth respondent, in view of the facts as mentioned above, I have no hesitation to set out the impugned order. The impugned

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P(MD)No.21479 of 2023

¶38

order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the petition mentioned premises. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible.

¶39

6.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶40

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

01.12.2023

¶42

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶43

To:-

¶44

1.The District Collector, Tenkasi District.

¶45

2.The Tahsildar, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tenkasi District.

¶46

3.The Jamapanthiyalar, Taluk Office, 5GGW+WR3, Thiruvengadam Road, Near New Bus Stand, Sankarankoil, Tenkasi District.

¶47

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

¶48

4/6

¶49

W.P(MD)No.21479 of 2023

¶50

5/6

¶51

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

¶52

W.P(MD)No.21479 of 2023

¶53

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶54

ias

¶55

W.P(MD)No.21479 of 2023

¶56

01.12.2023

¶57

6/6

¶58

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

P.Kalaiyarasi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kalaiyarasi 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

Sakthivel.P Vs The District Registrar

P.Sakthivel Vs The District Revenue Officer

Ganesan.T Vs The Government of India

Mohamed Mohideen.S Vs The Director

Boominathan P Vs The Superintending Engineer

T.Velsankar, Vs T.Udayasankar