Dismissed

S.Valarmathi, v. the District Collector

Madras HC19 Sept 2024WP/27046/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition claiming patta for municipal Corporation land based on a sale deed of 1935. The Court rejected the claim as land belonged to the Corporation. Petitioners failed to challenge the rejection order via appellate authority. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct respondents to issue patta dismissed.

S.Valarmathi, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No. 27046 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P. No.27046 of 2024

¶7

1.S.Valarmathi

¶8

P.Arumaikumar

¶9

P.Sudharsanam

¶10

4.Mrs Suganthi

¶11

..Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

The District Collector

¶14

Chennai District Collector Office, 62, Rajaji Salai

¶15

Chennai-600 001.

¶16

The Special Tahsildar

¶17

Land and Development Authority, Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003.

¶18

The Tahsildar Taluk Office Purasawalkam Periyamet,

¶19

Chennai-600 003.

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to

¶22

1/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P. No. 27046 of 2024

¶25

issue patta in name of the petitioners land belonging to the corporation of madras being municipal old survey No 74/1, 76/1 on eastern Fire Wood Department lane (Now known as Jakkatapuram) Waltax Road, Elephant gate, Vepery, Madras within of registration north district, of west Madras Registration District of Madras periamet bearing old survey No 678, Resurvey No 1275/1,as per proceedings Na.Ka. No A1 / 483 / 2024 dated 28.06.2024 by the 3rd respondent.

¶26

For Petitioners :M/S.R.Thangamani

¶27

For Respondents 1 &3 : Mr.P.Sathish

¶28

Additional Government pleader Mr.G.T.Subramanian Standing Counsel(GCC) for R2

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The petitioners herein seek a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to issue patta in their names in respect of land belonging to the Corporation of Chennai situated in Old Survey No. 74/1, 76/1, New Survey No. 1275/1 as per the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No A1/ 48/ 2024 dated 28.06.2024.

¶31

According to the petitioners, their mother Kanniyammal purchased

¶32

2/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P. No. 27046 of 2024

¶35

the subject property under sale deed dated 08.03.1935 and the petitioners and their predecessor in interest have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property from the year 1935. The petitioners submitted a representation before the 3^rd respondent seeking issue of patta in their names in respect of subject property. The 3^rd respondent passed an order on 28.06.2024 rejecting the request of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have come by way of this writ petition seeking direction to respondents 2 and 3 to issue patta in their names.

¶36

A perusal of the title document of the petitioners dated 08.03.1935 would indicate that even in title document, the subject property was described as land belonging to the Corporation. Therefore, it is clear that site of the subject property belongs to the Corporation and the 3^rd respondent rightly rejected the request of the petitioners seeking issue of pata in their names. In fact, the petitioners have not challenged the order passed by the 3^rd respondent before the appellate authority. In any event, the site of the subject property admittedly belongs to the Corporation of Chennai and hence, the petitioners are not entitled to get patta based on the said title document. Therefore, the

¶37

3/5

¶38

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

¶39

W.P. No. 27046 of 2024

¶40

writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to assert petitioners' right over the subject land by virtue of long possession. The same cannot be considered in the absence of Corporation of Chennai, that too in a writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶41

19.09.2024 (1/2)

¶42

Index : Yes/No

¶43

Neutral Citation : Yes/No nr

¶44

¶45

The District Collector Chennai District Collector Office, 62, Rajaji Salai Chennai-600 001.

¶46

The Special Tahsildar Land and Development Authority, Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003.

¶47

The Tahsildar Taluk Office Purasawalkam Periyamet, Chennai-600 003.

¶48

4/5

¶49

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

¶50

W.P. No. 27046 of 2024

¶51

S.SOUNTHAR, J. nr

¶52

W.P. No. 27046 of 2024

¶53

19.09.2024,

¶54

5/5

¶55

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

S.Valarmathi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Valarmathi, 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

Sarojini Varadarajan Vs the Secretary to the Government

S.Ganesan Vs the District Collector

Chandrasekaran Vs the District Registrar

[email protected] Vs the District Collector

Kannammal Vs the District Collector

Sivasubrmanian Vs the District Collector