Dismissed

Saharban Begum v. The District Collector

Madras HC17 Apr 2023WP(MD)/4744/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an alleged owner seeking mutation of her name and removal of the fifth respondent from revenue records. The Court held that as the petitioner had already filed a civil suit for declaration of title, she cannot pursue the same matter in revenue proceedings, and the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Saharban Begum Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.4744 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.4744 of 2020

¶7

Saharban Begum ... Petitioner

¶8

/vs./

¶9

1.The District Collector, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶10

2.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk Office, Pudukottai District.

¶12

4.The Head Surveyor, Alangudi Taluk Office, Pudukkottai.

¶13

5.Lakshmanan

¶14

6.Rajamohamed

¶15

(Cause title has been amended vide order dated 16.12.2020 and also R6 has been impleaded vide order dated 22.01.2021)

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.4744 of 2020

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 to 4 respondents to cancel the name of the 5th respondent from the revenue records in respect of survey No. 225/3B2 situated at Nathampanni Village, Pudukottai District by including the petitioner's name and consequently to survey and measure the property on the basis of the petitioner's representations dated 07.02.2020 and 11.02.2020 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Vishnu For R1 to R4 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj Special Government Pleader For R6 : Mr.D.Rameshkumar

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The above writ petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the name of the fifth respondent from the revenue records in respect of the property in S.No.225/3B2 at Nathampanni Village, Pudukottai District by including the petitioner's name and consequently to survey and measure the property on the basis of the petitioner's representations dated 07.02.2020 and 11.02.2020.

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.4744 of 2020

¶27

2.The petitioner's case is that she is the absolute owner of the above mentioned properties and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for so many years. Recently when she was checking the encumbrance, she found that the name of the fifth respondent had been wrongly included as the owner. Despite such an entry, she would contend that she is the owner of the property and is in possession of the same. Therefore, she had given representations to the respondents 1 to 3 on 07.02.2020 and 11.02.2020 calling upon them to explain as to how the error had occurred in the revenue records and had requested them to conduct a proper enquiry. However, there has been no response to the same. Hence, the above writ petition.

¶28

3.The sixth respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which he has stated that the petitioner has already filed a suit O.S.No.370 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the above property and this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner. This submission has been reiterated by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.4744 of 2020

¶32

4.Considering the fact that the petitioner has already moved the civil Court

¶33

for declaring her title to the property and for the consequential injunction, the petitioner cannot ride two horses by initiating proceedings before different forum. The parties have to workout their right in the above suit and thereafter approach the authority concerned for mutating the revenue records.

¶34

5.In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there

¶35

shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Speaking : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mm

¶37

17.04.2023

¶38

¶39

1.The District Collector, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶40

2.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai.

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.4744 of 2020

¶44

3.The Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk Office, Pudukottai District.

¶45

4.The Head Surveyor, Alangudi Taluk Office, Pudukkottai.

¶46

5/6

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD) No.4744 of 2020

¶49

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶50

¶51

W.P.(MD) No.4744 of 2020

¶52

17.04.2023

¶53

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

¶54

6/6

Saharban Begum v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saharban Begum 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasantha.P Vs The District Collector

Y. Regina Mary Vs the District Collector

Krishnammal Vs the Principal Secretary

P.Suresh Vs The Commissioner

Govindaraj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Al-Aleem Nursery and Primary School Vs the Chief Educational Officer