Disposed

M.Sekar v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Jul 2024WP/2752/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Revenue Authority order directing parties to approach the Civil Court regarding a land title dispute. The High Court directed the petitioner to establish his title over the property in the Civil Court, ensuring the Civil Court decides based on merits without the influence of the impugned order. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; parties directed to approach Civil Court.

M.Sekar Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P No.2752 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P No.2752 of 2024 and W.M.P No.3021 of 2024

¶7

M.Sekar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector Tiruvallur District.

¶10

2.The District Revenue Officer Tiruvallur District

¶11

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Tiruttani Taluk Tiruvallur District.

¶12

4.The Tahsildar Tiruttani Taluk Tiruvallur District.

¶13

5.Rajammal

¶14

6.G.Sekar

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P No.2752 of 2024

¶19

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 28.11.2023 vide e.f.332626/2022/M/1 and quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohanram For Respondents : Mr.S.Jayachandran for R1 to R4 Government Advocate Mr.V.Manohar for R5 and R6

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the Revenue Authorities directing the parties to approach the competent Civil Court.

¶23

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner's great

¶24

grand father Munusamy Reddy acquired 1.20 cents comprised in Survey No.21/1. After his death, the petitioner's grand father Chinnasamy Reddy

¶25

and his brother Gopal Reddy acquired their equal share in the land i.e 60

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P No.2752 of 2024 cents each. Subsequently, the petitioner's grand father Chinnasamy sold his share of 17 cents out of 60 cents to one Rajammal, who is the 5th respondent herein, in the year 1982. Therefore, the petitioner's father inherited only the balance 43 cents. Whereas, the 4th respondent has issued patta in favour of the 5th respondent in respect of 60 cents and subsequently, the patta was transferred in the name of 6th respondent. Since the application was given by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

The main contention of the writ petitioner is that he is entitled to 43 cents in the entire area. However, the 5th respondent had purchased 17 cents out of 60 cents entitled by Chinnasamy Reddy. Therefore, granting patta for 60 cents by the authorities cannot be sustained. From the impugned order, it reveals that there is no sub-division from the inception and the application has been given after four decades of UDR. Therefore, Authorities relegated the parties to the civil court. The petitioner traced his title through inheritance. This Court directs the petitioner to

¶30

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

¶31

W.P No.2752 of 2024

¶32

establish his right over the property before the civil court. If any such suit is filed, the same has to be decided on its own merits without the influence of the order passed by the Revenue Authorities dated 28.11.2023. The rights of the parties shall be decided on its own merits. The Civil Court shall not be influenced by the impugned order. On the other hand, it can decide the

¶33

rights of the parties based on the evidence adduced independently.

¶34

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶35

no costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶36

25.07.2024

¶37

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order uma

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P No.2752 of 2024

¶41

¶42

1.The District Collector Tiruvallur District.

¶43

2.The District Revenue Officer Tiruvallur District

¶44

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Tiruttani Taluk Tiruvallur District.

¶45

4.The Tahsildar Tiruttani Taluk Tiruvallur District.

¶46

5/6

¶47

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

¶48

W.P No.2752 of 2024

¶49

N.SATHISHKUMAR,J.

¶50

uma

¶51

W.P No.18170 of 2024 and

¶52

W.M.P No.3021 of 2024

¶53

25.07.2024

¶54

6/6

¶55

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

M.Sekar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sekar 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

P.Duraisamy Vs Dr. P.Senthilkumar, I.A.S.

G.Rasappa Vs the District Collector

Akbr Leathers Employees Union Vs Inspector General

R.Subathra Devi, Vs the Sub Registrar

K.Mani Vs the District Registrar

Usha Rangarajan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu