Dismissed

Karuppiah.M v. The District Collector

Madras HC13 Feb 2023WP(MD)/68/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Priv. respondents sought mutation of record; petitioners filed a Writ petition under Article 226 to restrain the Revenue Divisional Officer from continuing the enquiry until a civil suit declaring a partition decree non-binding was disposed of. The Court found the suit did not fall under the exclusion rule, noted other remedies existed, and disposed of the Writ petition. The connected miscellaneou

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer to restrain the enquiry and connected miscellaneous petitions rejected.

Karuppiah.M Vs The District Collector — Partition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.68 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.68 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.83 & 84 of 2023

¶7

1.M.Karuppiah

¶8

2.K.Viswanathan ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collectorate, Trichy, Trichy District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy.

¶12

3.A.Parthasarathy

¶13

4.A.Navaneethakrishnan ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the second respondent from proceeding with the enquiry in Na.Ka(A7)/3261-2020 pending disposal of the civil suit in O.S.No.101 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Trichy.

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P(MD)No.68 of 2023

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.I.Muthiah For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2

¶19

: Mr.H.Arumugam for R3 & R4

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶22

The private respondents herein have submitted an application before the second respondent for mutation of revenue record. The second respondent had issued notice to all the interested parties. At this stage, the present writ petition has been filed for forbearing the second respondent from proceeding with the enquiry till the disposal of the petition mentioned suits. The petition mentioned suits have not been filed for declaration of title as such. They have been instituted to secure declaration that the partition decree obtained by the private respondents is not binding on the petitioners herein. Such a suit will not fall within the scope of Rule 4(4) of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents herein categorically states that they have no claim on the property actually purchased by the petitioners under the original sale deeds. It appears to be an issue of correlation. The second respondent can very well resolve this issue after https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶24

W.P(MD)No.68 of 2023

¶25

proper enquiry with reference to the correlation register. If the outcome is unfavorable to the petitioners, they have effective statutory remedies. They can move the District Revenue Officer. They can file a civil suit. If circumstances permit, they can even invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. When the petitioners are having host of judicial remedies, it is not necessary to restrain the second respondent from proceeding in the matter at this stage.

¶26

Leaving open all the contentions of the writ petitioners, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

13.02.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶28

¶29

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collectorate, Trichy, Trichy District.

¶30

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy.

¶31

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶32

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

¶33

3/4

¶34

W.P(MD)No.68 of 2023

rmi

W.P(MD)No.68 of 2023

13.02.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Karuppiah.M v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppiah.M 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

Venkatesh R S Vs The District Collector

Ravi R Vs The District Revenue Officer

Sureshkumar S Vs The Branch Manager

Hemalatha.a.R Vs The Union of India

Muthu Vs The District Collector

Chinnapponnammal Vs The District Collector