Allowed

Sheik Mohideen v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Apr 2024WP/4393/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an ex-parte order cancelling a patta due to procedural irregularities regarding hearing dates. The Court directed that patta could be issued only after the results of pending civil suits regarding property identity were ascertained.

What did the court decide?

Impugned ex-parte order cancelled; parties directed to agitate rights in pending civil suits; Revenue authorities directed to issue patta subject to suit results.

Sheik Mohideen Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.4393 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 01.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P. No.4393 of 2018 and W.M.P. No.5402 of 2018

S.Sheik Mohideen

. . Petitioner

1.The District Collector

¶11

Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Tambaram, Kancheepuram District

¶14

4.R.Kirubaraj

¶15

5.Mrs.Revathy Kirubaraj Both are residing at No.106, Rushden Gardens, II Ford Essex, UK IGS 0BW

¶16

Represented by its Power of Attorney Holder Rajesh kanna . . Respondents

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

___________ Page No:1/7_

¶20

W.P. No.4393 of 2018

¶21

PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari by calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent herein pertaining to the order in Na. Ka. No.2161/2016/No.3 dated 12.02.2018 and quash the same.

¶22

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ravikumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish, AGP for R1 to R3 Mr.G.K.R.Pandiyan for R4 and R5

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Challenge has been made to the order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the District Revenue Officer cancelling the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, granting patta in favour of the writ petitioner.

¶26

The main challenge is made on the ground that though summons were

¶27

issued for different dates, the order reflects as if the writ petitioner has not appeared for the hearing fixed on three different dates and thereby the ex-parte order has been passed setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and further, the documents and counter have also not been considered by the

¶28

District Revenue Officer.

¶29

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

¶30

___________ Page No:2/7_

¶31

W.P. No.4393 of 2018

¶32

The respondents 4 and 5 have filed their counter that patta has been obtained suppressing the civil suits and according to them, the writ petitioner, in order to grab the property of the respondents 4 and 5, obtained patta. Though other factual aspects as pleaded in the suit are also pleaded in the counter, they are not germane for the disposal of the writ petition at this stage.

¶33

The impugned order assailed mainly on the ground that no opportunity

¶34

has been granted to the petitioner and the patta has been cancelled in the ex-

¶35

parte order.

¶36

I have perused the entire materials placed before this court, particularly typed set Page Nos.160 to 166, where a notice was issued by the District Revenue Officer on 30.10.2017 for the appearance of the petitioner on 16.11.2017, on 23.11.2017 a notice was issued for the appearance of the petitioner on 01.12.2017 and again a notice was issued 05.12.2017 for the appearance of the petitioner on 15.12.2017. However, the order passed in the ex-parte proceedings indicate as if enquiry was conducted on 08.09.2017, 05.10.2017 and 27.10.2017, thereby an ex-parte order has been passed cancelling the patta.

¶37

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

¶38

___________ Page No:3/7_

¶39

W.P. No.4393 of 2018

¶40

The main issue revolves around the parties is with regard to identity of the property. According to the writ petitioner, at the time of laying a lay out, there are only 217 approved plots, whereas, later, when the vendor and his brother have annexed unapproved lay outs on the OSR lands and sold to respondents 4 and 5. Hence, according to him, the lay outs will be in seriatum, whereas the respondents 4 and 5 are said to have purchased Plot No.239 now making claim over the writ petitioner's property. It is the contention of the respondents 4 and 5 that their properties are adjacent to Plot No.182.

¶41

Be that as it may, both sides are not disputing about the pendency of the suit in O.S. No.185 of 2012 filed by the writ petitioner to declare the sale deed in favour of the respondents as null and void and also for consequential injunction. Similarly, the respondents 4 and 5 have also filed a suit in O.S. No.95 of 2012 for bare injunction. It appears that challenging an order in Interlocutory Application, a Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this court in C.R.P. No.2481 of 2016. In the above revision, this court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to make inspection and give a report. Now, it appears that the Advocate Commissioner has also filed his Report, which is not in favour of the respondents 4 and 5 herein. Thereafter, it appears that the suit

¶42

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

¶43

Page No:4/7

¶44

W.P. No.4393 of 2018

¶45

filed by the respondents 4 and 5 was allowed to be dismissed for default. However, now the counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 would submit that the respondents 4 and 5 have already filed an application to restore the said suit.

¶46

Be that as it may, when the very issue is with regard to the identity of the property of both sides, as the suits are pending now, this court is of the view that issuance of any patta will be subject to the results of the suits only. The impugned order passed as if an enquiry was conducted on three different dates other than the dates mentioned in the hearing notices where the writ petitioner was summoned, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the ex-parte impugned order dated 12.02.2018 made in Na. Ka. No.2161/2016/No.3 on the file of hte second respondent, is set aside and the parties can agitate their rights in the civil suits already pending and the Revenue authorities are directed to issue patta subject to the results of the civil suits.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶48

01.04.2024

¶49

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

¶50

___________ Page No:5/7_

¶51

W.P. No.4393 of 2018

¶52

Index : Yes / No Speaking/non speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Asr

¶53

¶54

1.The District Collector Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram

¶55

2.The District Revenue Officer Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram

¶56

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Tambaram, Kancheepuram District

¶57

4.The Government Pleader High Court, Madras

¶58

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶59

Asr

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page No:6/7_

¶61

W.P. No.4393 of 2018

¶62

W.P. No.4393 of 2018 and W.M.P. No.5402 of 2018

¶63

01.04.2024

¶64

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

¶65

___________ Page No:7/7_

Sheik Mohideen v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheik Mohideen 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

C.Sekar Vs Anuradha and 7 others

Mr.B.Venkateswaran Vs Mr.R.Avudaiappan

A.Jagadeesan Vs a.Srinivasan and 4 others

M.Velmurugan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

K.C. Raja Vs The Inspector General of

T.Gothai Vs the District Collector