Disposed

Mylathal v. the District Collector

Madras HC11 Sept 2024WP/26344/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought cancellation of revenue records in favour of non-Scheduled Caste individuals and restoration of possession. The High Court, without expressing an opinion on substantive rights, directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a final order after issuing notices.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.04.2023 and pass a final order after issuing necessary notices.

Mylathal Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.26344 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P No.26344 of 2024

¶7

Mylathal ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, Thiruppu. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udumalpet, Thiruppur District. 3.The Tahsildar, Udumalpet, Thiruppur District. 4. Vanitha

¶10

R.Praveen

¶11

R.Vijaysaravanan ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the representations dated 18.11.2022 and 17.04.2023 issued by the petitioner to cancel the patta and other revenue records stands in the name of the respondents 4 to 6 with respect of the Panchami land comprised in SF.No.812/1 Kannamanaickanur Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Thiruppur District to an extent of 0.98.00 Hecters and recover the possession from them and handover the same the petitioner herein.

¶13

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

¶14

1/5

¶15

W.P.No.26344 of 2024

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the first respondent to consider her representations dated 18.11.2022 and 17.04.2023 seeking cancellation of patta issued in the name of the respondents 4 to 6 in respect of the Panchami land comprised in S.F.No.812/1 Kannamanaickanur Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Thiruppur District to an extent of 0.98.00 Hecters and hand over the said property.

¶19

According to the petitioner, the above said property was originally assigned in favour of the petitioner's husband . The petitioner's husband sold the property in favour of one Angammal on 12.04.1991. Later the said Angammal sold the property to one Krishnasam Naicker on 28.05.1992 and the said Krishnasam Naicker sold the said property on 04.06.2007 and based on the said sale deed in favour of the respondents 4 to 6, the patta was also issued in their names. It is accepted by the petitioner that all the purchasers namely Krishnasam Naikcker as well as respondents 4 to 6 do not belong to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes. Therefore, the sale of property in favour of a person

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶21

W.P.No.26344 of 2024

¶22

who does not belong to Schedule Caste community is not valid. However, the petitioner made a representation before the first respondent seeking cancellation of the patta in the name of respondents 4 to 6 and to restore the possession to her and the same has not been considered till date. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that initial sale by the petitioner's husband to one Angammal itself was invalid as the same was in favour of a person who did not belong to Schedule Casts Community. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to seek restoration of possession in her favour.

¶24

In view of the above, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the claim made by the petitioner and also rights of the other parties inclined to issue a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.04.2023 and pass final order on its own merits, after issuing necessary notice to the petitioner as well as respondents 4 to 6 and other interested parties, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

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

¶26

3/5

¶27

W.P.No.26344 of 2024

¶28

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶29

costs.

¶30

11.09.2024

¶31

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order av

¶32

¶33

The District Collector, Thiruppu.

¶34

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udumalpet, Thiruppur District. 3.The Tahsildar, Udumalpet, Thiruppur District.

¶35

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

¶36

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

W.P.No.26344 of 2024

W.P No.26344 of 2024

11.09.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5

Mylathal v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mylathal v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meenambal Vs The District Collector

G.Ezhilarasan Vs The secretary to Government

R.Rangarajan Vs The District Collector/Sole Arbitrator

Suresh Chandra Jaiswal Vs The State of TamilNadu

Mylathal Vs the District Registrar

V.Hemalatha Vs the Secretary