Petitioner challenged an order issued by the District Revenue Officer refusing to correct patta extent due to mention of an unrelated civil suit. The Court quashed the impugned order as without jurisdiction and restored the previous recommendation.
Impugned order quashed; previous RDO recommendation restored; respondents directed to issue patta forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
V. Arumugham ... Petitioner ..Vs..
1/11
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the Order in Na.Ka.No.V3/1161381/2023 dated 18.11.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the Representation of the petitioner dated 06.10.2023 and pass orders in accordance with law, within a time frame stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. Manuraj
For Respondents : Mr. S. J. Mohamed Sathik, Government Advocate
ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order passed by the
second respondent on 08.11.2023 vide proceedings No.Na.Ka.V3/1161381/2023.
learned Government Advocate for the respondents, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
2/11
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
would show that the petitioner has continuously cultivated in the property in Old Survey No.166/8. The Patta was issued in the name of the petitioner to an extent of 56 cents of the land in Survey No.116/8. Originally, the Patta which stood to an extent of 56 cents of land in survey No.116/8 was reduced to an extent of 44 cents in Re-Survey No.117/17 and remains as 0.18.00 ares and thereby, the Patta bearing No.152 was issued without any prior notice to the petitioner with regard to the Re-Survey.
made a representation with the second respondent on 15.12.2022 pointing
3/11
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
petitioner and the neighboring land owners to be present at the time of field inspection and the said exercise was completed on 13.01.2023. The fourth respondent, vide his letter dated 31.05.2023 in Na.Ka.Aa.3/795/2023, has recommended that necessary corrections to be made in the revenue records by granting 55.57 cents in favour of the petitioner. The fourth respondent through his letter dated 03.06.2023 in Na.Ka.Aa.3/1520/2023, made his recommendation to the first respondent to issue Patta in the name of the petitioner for an extent of 55.57 cents.
Na.Ka.No.V3/1161381/2023 directing the petitioner to appear in person for enquiry along with original records on 14.09.2023. The petitioner had 4/11
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
participated in the enquiry and submitted all the relevant documents as requested and also submitted all the original documents to establish that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in Old Survey No.116/8.
5/11
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
while passing the impugned order on 18.11.2023, in Na.Ka.V3/1161381/2023 had recorded the statement that the petitioner is the owner of the property by virtue of the registered Sale deed No.2103/1989 dated 14.12.1989 in Old Survey No.116/8 and the Re-Survey No.117/17. Further, the second respondent in the impugned order, quoted the pendency of a Civil Suit filed by a third party, which has been enclosed in the type set of papers.
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
No.408, dated 19.09.1991 and the Sale deed dated 20.02.2018.
7/11
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
8/11
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
17.07.2023 is hereby restored. The Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue Patta to the petitioner, forthwith. No costs.
09.10.2024
ssi Index : Yes Internet : Yes Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No
To:
9/11
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
Cuddalore District.
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.,
ssi
10/11
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
W.P.No.30348 of 2024
09.10.2024
11/11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order passed by the District Revenue Officer was without jurisdiction and cast malice for referring to a civil suit unrelated to the petitioner's ownership claim.
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer's recommendation dated 17.07.2023 should be restored and whether the respondents are directed to issue Patta forthwith.
Arumugham
The District Collector, Cuddalore District
The District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore
The Tahsildar, Kurinjipadi Taluk
The Secretary, Revenue Department
N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
