Writ petition challenging a revenue order on patta over a disputed 405 sq. ft. pathway in Hosur. The court set aside an earlier 2013 encroachment notice as effaced, but applying the Supreme Court's Edelweiss principle relegated both sides to the Civil Court for title adjudication.
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.34290 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.P. No.34290 of 2024 & W.M.P. No.37153 of 2024
R. Sankar Petitioner
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent issued in Pa.Mu. 32138/2023/J2 dated 14.08.2024, quash the same and consequently, direct the official respondents to cancel the patta standing in the name of the 6th 1/10
W.P. No.34290 of 2024
respondent in respect of land measuring to an extent of 405 sq. ft. (9 ft. wide and 45 ft. depth) comprised in Town Survey No.165 situate at Keezhkollar Street, Bagalur Road, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and restore the same to its original structure as common pathway within a time frame.
For petitioner Ms. R. Divyapreathika For RR 1 to 5 Mr. T.K. Saravanan Government Advocate
For R6 Mr. Rathina Asohan
ORDER
(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)
Captioned 'writ petition' ('WP' for the sake of brevity) pertains to 'land comprised in Town Survey No.165 situate in Keezhkollar Street, Bagalur Road, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District' ('said land' for the sake of convenience). It comes to light from the case file that the dispute pertains to an extent of 405 sq. ft. (9' width and 45' length) qua said land. Therefore, this 405 sq. ft. shall be referred to as 'said disputed land' for convenience.
'W.P. No.34290 of 2024 and W.M.P. No.37153 of 2024
M.SUNDAR,J., and 2/10
W.P. No.34290 of 2024
K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.)
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 25.11.2024, which reads as follows:
&
W.M.P.No.37153 of 2024 in W.P.No.34290 of
2024
M.SUNDAR,J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.)
Captioned writ petition pertains to land comprised in 'Survey No.165 situate in Keezhkollar Street, Bagalur Road, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District' [hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience].
2. Learned counsel for writ petitioner Ms.R.Divyapreathika submits that an 'order dated 14.08.2024 bearing reference g/K/32138/2023/n$2 made by R2' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity] has been called in question. Learned counsel submits that impugned order has been made erroneously.
3. Issue notice to official respondents.
4. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for all five official respondents.
5. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, submits, on instructions, that the impugned order has been under Section 13 of the 'Tamil Nadu Pattapass Book Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1986)' [hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience] and that a civil suit will lie against such order. Learned State
3/10
W.P. No.34290 of 2024
counsel requests for time to produce relevant material. Request acceded to.
6. List in the Admission Board i.e., Motion List one week hence.
List on 02.12.2024.'
4/10
W.P. No.34290 of 2024
(S.Prakash) and it calls upon the noticee to remove encroachment qua said disputed land within 7 days. This notice also mentions that it has been issued under Section 182 of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920). (To be noted, District Municipalities Act, 1920, has since been repealed by the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, vide Section 200).
W.P. No.34290 of 2024
W.P. No.15873 of 2013, R5 (Commissioner, Hosur Municipality) appears to have conducted enquiry afresh and made an order dated 28.07.2021 bearing reference Se.Mu.Aa.Na.Ka.No.9774/2012 (F1) but that order is not before this Court.
W.P. No.34290 of 2024
'19. Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987, the Tahsildar is not empowered to adjudicate upon a 'title dispute'. A combined reading of Section 14 and Rule 14(4) indicates that where there exists a dispute with respect to ownership of a land between parties with respect to a patta entry, the correct procedure to be adopted is to approach a civil court having competent jurisdiction. The entry records will be updated on the basis of the decree of the civil court upon adjudication.'
W.P. No.34290 of 2024
approached, the impugned order and the orders made by R4
(Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk) and R3 (Sub Collector, Hosur) prior to the impugned order, can also be scrutinised in trial. Therefore, we neither set aside the impugned order nor sustain the same. We make it clear that we are leaving it open to the Civil Court to examine the suit on its own merits and in accordance with law in trial. Though obvious, for the sake of specificity, we clarify that all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner, R6 and any other person who may be concerned with the matter, are preserved for the purpose of being canvassed in the Civil Court if the Civil Court is approached.
no order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 16.12.2024 Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No cad
8/10
W.P. No.34290 of 2024
9/10
W.P. No.34290 of 2024
M. SUNDAR, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
cad
W.P. No.34290 of 2024
16.12.2024
10/10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned revenue order on patta for a disputed 405 sq. ft. land should be quashed or whether the parties should be relegated to the Civil Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Ltd. vs. R.Perumalswamy and othersApplied¶10
Civil Appeal No.1318 of 2017
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R. Sankar
The District Collector, Krishnagiri District
The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District
The Sub-Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District
The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District
S. Prakash
M. Sundar
K. Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
