Disposed

M.Piraman, S/O.Muniandi v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Mar 2023WP(MD)/3049/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order rejecting their patta request for a water body classified property, arguing discrimination and classification error. The Court held disputed facts preclude writ interference under Article 226 as an alternative revenue remedy exists. The petition was disposed of by granting leave to appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file an appeal before the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer within 30 days to assail the impugned order on merits.

M.Piraman, S/O.Muniandi Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.3049 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :23.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3049 of 2016

¶7

1.M.Piraman 2.M.Aandi 3.M.Rajendran ... Petitioners Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶9

2.The Tahsildar, Kadaladi Taluk, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide x/Kgp1/14813/2015 dated 03.12.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry.

¶11

Page 1 of 5

¶12

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

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.K.C.Ramalingam For Respondents :Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.3049 of 2016

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioners assail an order dated 03.12.2015 of the second respondent by which the request for patta was rejected.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the

¶18

petitioners have resided in the property bearing Survey No.263/6 for a considerable period of time. In fact, he states that the said property was originally in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' grand mothers. He further states that pattas were granted in respect of adjoining properties and that the petitioners have been discriminated against. In support of this contention, he relies upon page No.6 of the additional affidavit, which indicates the four boundaries of Survey No.263/6. According to him, patta has been issued to the owners of the lands on the north, south and east of

¶19

their property.

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.3049 of 2016

¶23

These contentions are refuted by learned Government Advocate. Learned Government Advocate relies upon the 'A' Register, which classifies Survey No.263/6 as Karunkulam Kanmai Neerpidi. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference since patta cannot be issued in relation to a water body. He further submits that an appellate remedy is provided against the impugned order and that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed because the writ petitioners failed to avail of the statutory remedy.

¶24

The records reveal that Survey No.263/6 is currently classified as a water body. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners asserts that such classification is incorrect as evidenced by the fact that pattas were issued in respect of all the adjoining properties. The question as to whether the classification is erroneous involves disputed questions of fact and cannot be effectively addressed while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As correctly pointed out by learned Government Advocate, the petitioners have an alternative remedy.

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.3049 of 2016

¶28

Therefore, W.P(MD).No.3049 of 2016 is disposed of by granting leave to the petitioners to assail the impugned order by way of an appeal before the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer. If such appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, such appeal shall be considered and disposed of on merits, without taking into account the question of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

23.03.2023

¶30

NCC :No Internet :Yes Index :No ssb

¶31

¶32

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶33

2.The Tahsildar, Kadaladi Taluk, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.3049 of 2016

¶37

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶38

ssb

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.3049 of 2016

¶40

23.03.2023

¶41

Page 5 of 5

¶42

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

M.Piraman, S/O.Muniandi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Piraman, S/O.Muniandi 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

Ligori Vanji Arasu Vs the Director General

K.Meenal Vs Saraswathi

T.T.Manohara Boopathy Vs the District Revenue Officer

Thiayagarajan, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Karuthamuthu, S/O.Mundan, Vs the Disrtict Collector

Balasubramanian Vs the District Revenue Officer