Dismissed

Ravaneeswaran D v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC4 Jul 2023WP(MD)/943/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged rejection of his request for patta issuance for agricultural land. The High Court held that he failed to produce sufficient documents to substantiate his claim. The Court disposed of the writ without adjudicating merits, directing the petitioner to establish rights in civil court before approaching revenue officials.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. The writ petition was disposed of without costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Ravaneeswaran D Vs the District Revenue Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.943 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.07.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.943 of 2022 and WMP(MD)Nos.776, 777 of 2022

¶7

D.Ravaneeswaran ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Virudhunagar District.

¶10

2.The Sub Collector, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

4.Sundaraj

¶13

5.Santhanakrishnan

¶14

6.Gurusamy

¶15

7.Govindaraj ... Respondents

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

WP(MD)No.943 of 2022

¶19

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Ne.Mu.A2/20002/2020 dated 10.11.2021 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to issue patta in the name of the petitioner for the property situated in Virudhunagar District, Sivakasi Taluk, Thiruthangal Village, Old S.No.758 and New S.Nos.758/2, 758/5A, 758/5B, 758/6A, 758/6B to an extent of 3 acre 42 cents within a stipulated time frame.

¶20

For Petitioner : Ms.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3

¶21

No appearance for R.4, R.7

¶22

Ms.S.Mahalakshmi for R.5

¶23

Ms.P.Rohini for R.6 *****

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Seeking patta, the petitioner approached the revenue officials. The Tahsildar rejected his request and as against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The appeal was also rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer holding that the petitioner has not 2/5

¶26

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

¶27

WP(MD)No.943 of 2022

¶28

produced sufficient documents to include his name and to issue joint patta. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the District Revenue Officer, who, by order dated 10.11.2021, has also dismissed the revision. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

¶29

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner, by relying on certain documents, submitted that the land in S.Nos.758/2, 758/5A, 758/5B, 758/6A, 758/6B (Old S.No.758) Thiruthangal Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District, originally belonged to one Naranappa Naickar, who purchased the properties on a Court auction from the District Munsif Court, Sattur, in E.P.No. 357/1908 in O.S.No.135/1902. The petitioner's father has purchased the properties from the legal heirs of the said Narannappa Naickar. The learned Counsel has also relied on voluminous documents.

¶30

3.This Court is not inclined to dwell into the merits of the case. The officials have rejected the petitioner's claim holding that the petitioner has not produced sufficient materials to substantiate his claim. If the petitioner is 3/5

¶31

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

¶32

WP(MD)No.943 of 2022

¶33

supported with any materials, he shall produce the same before the officials concerned. The petitioner is also at liberty to approach the competent civil Court to establish his right over the properties and thereafter, to approach the officials for inclusion of name in patta.

¶34

In fine, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

Index : Yes / No 04.07.2023 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes gk

¶36

¶37

1.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Virudhunagar District.

¶38

2.The Sub Collector, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶39

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶40

4/5

¶41

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

WP(MD)No.943 of 2022

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

WP(MD)No.943 of 2022

¶46

04.07.2023

¶47

5/5

¶48

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

Ravaneeswaran D v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravaneeswaran D 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kr. Nagarajan Vs Mr.Madhusudhan Reddy

Subramaniyan.v Vs The District Revenue Officer

C. Tirupathi Vs Kumar Jayant IAS

J.K.M.Solrad Entech Private Limited, Vs The Tahsildar

Princy Vs The District Collector

Tamilmani Vs The District Registrar