Dismissed

D.Rameshkumar v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Mar 2024WP/7654/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order denying patta due to alleged lack of title, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition to pursue remedies in competent civil forums. The High Court considered the withdrawal and disposed of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn with the Petitioner retaining rights to pursue remedies in proper forums.

D.Rameshkumar Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No. 7654 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. No. 7654 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P. Nos. 8569 and 8571 of 2024

D.Rameshkumar

… Petitioner

-vs-

The District Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore.

¶12

The Block Development Office Kurinchipadi Taluk Cuddalore District.

¶13

The Tahsildar Kurinchipadi Taluk Cuddalore District.

¶14

The Panchayat President Vadakkuthu Village Kurinchipadi Taluk Cuddalore District.

¶15

Rangarajan ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order in Na.Ka. No. A8/28/2024 dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Second Respondent holding that the Petitioner has not title and

¶17

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

¶18

1/7

¶19

W.P. No. 7654 of 2024

¶20

quash the same and direct the Third Respondent to issue patta in favour of the Petitioner in Survey No. 463/18 (Old Survey No. 15/1A1A), Plot No. 166, at measuring 1616 sq.ft. situated at Thanthi Periyar Nagar, Vadakkuthu Village, Kurinchipadi Union, Vadalur, Cuddalore District based on Petitioner's title under Sale-Deed dated 27.09.2023 in Document No. 3510 of 2023 on the file of the SRO, Vadalur, as per Petitioner representation dated 23.12.2023 to the Third Respondent.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Satheeshkumar

¶22

For Respondents : Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, GA (RR1 & 3)

¶23

Mr. S.Jayachandran (RR2 & 4)

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard Mr. S.Satheeshkumar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.J.Mohamed Stahik, Learned Government Advocate who takes notice for

¶26

the First and Third Respondents and Mr. S.Jayachandran, Learned Counsel who takes notice for the Second and Fourth Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶27

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Order in Na. Ka. No. A8/28/2024 dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Second Respondent holding that

¶28

the Petitioner has no title in respect of the property in Survey No. 463/18 (Old

¶29

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

¶30

2/7

¶31

W.P. No. 7654 of 2024

¶32

Survey No. 15/1A1A), Plot No. 166, Thanthi Periyar Nagar, Vadakkuthu Village, Kurinchipadi Union, Vadalur, Cuddalore District and to consequently direct the Third Respondent to issue patta in favour of the Petitioner in respect of that property based on sale-deed dated 27.09.2023 registered as Document No. 3510 of 2023 on the file of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Vadalur, based on the representation dated 23.12.2023 made by the Petitioner in that regard.

¶33

Learned Counsel appearing for the First and Third Respondents, on instructions, states that the decree in Original Suit No. 77 of 2013 on 05.10.2015 has been passed against the vendor of the Petitioner by the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore. Further, Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent has filed filed a memo dated 25.03.2024 stating as follows:-

¶34

“2. It is submitted that the petitioner had purchased the land

¶35

from one Pandurangan, son of Venugopal, in Survey No. 463/18 (Old Survey No. 15/1A1A), Plot No. 166, measuring 1616 sq.ft., situated at Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Vadakkuthu Village, Kunjipadi Union, Vadalur, Cuddalore District through the sale-deed dated 27.09.2023 in Document No. 3510/2023 on the file of the SRO, Vadalur. The aforementioned Pandurangan,

¶36

son of Venugopal, had purchased the above land through

¶37

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

¶38

3/7

¶39

W.P. No. 7654 of 2024

¶40

Document No. 2088/2001.

¶41

3. It is submitted that the above-mentioned Pandurangan

¶42

had alienated 225 sq.feet through Gift Deed Document No. 1811/2005 to the Fourth Respondent Panchayat. Meanwhile, there was a civil suit bearing O.S. No. 77 of 2023 filed before the Hon'ble Principal District Munsif Court at Cuddalore by the President of the Thillainagar Residents' Welfare Society as the Suit for cancellation of the decree passed in O.S. 69/2011 dated 28.09.2011 in the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, and successors from demolishing and dismantling the existing water tank, pump station, and bore well on the suit property in any manner and for costs of the suit. The Hon'ble Principal District Munsif Court, through its decree and judgment dated 05.10.2015, held as follows:-

¶43

“In the result, the decree and judgment

¶44

passed O.S. No. 69 of 2011 dated 28.09.2011 on the

¶45

file of Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore

¶46

is canceled and a permanent injunction is granted

¶47

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

¶48

4/7

¶49

W.P. No. 7654 of 2024

¶50

against the defendants, their men, agent and successors from demolishing and dismantling the existing water tank, pump station and bore well in the suit property. However, the Second defendant is entitled to deal with the suit property only to benefit the residents therein. The defendants have to bear the costs. ”

¶51

In the above juncture, the petitioner had purchased the above property from the Pandurangan and is seeking the issuance of a new patta in the petitioner's favour. The above land in Survey No. 463/18 (Old Survey No. 15/1A1A), Plot No. 166, measuring 1616 sq.ft., situated at Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Vadakkuthu Village, Kurinji Union, Vadalur, Cuddalore District had revenue accounts in a Joint Patta bearing 157 persons. Meanwhile, the second respondent proceeded to claim that the petitioner had no title to the above property and that the sale is void.”

¶52

In that backdrop, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of

¶53

the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition reserving the rights of the Petitioner to

¶54

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

¶55

5/7

¶56

W.P. No. 7654 of 2024

¶57

work out his remedies before proper forum in the manner recognized by law

¶58

and he has made endorsement to that effect in the Court record.

¶59

In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid

¶60

clarifications. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶61

No costs.

¶62

25.03.2024

¶63

Index: Yes/No NCC: Yes/No

¶64

Note: Issue order copy by 23.04.2024.

¶65

Maya

¶66

¶67

The District Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore.

¶68

The Block Development Office Kurinchipadi Taluk Cuddalore District.

¶69

The Tahsildar Kurinchipadi Taluk Cuddalore District.

¶70

The Panchayat President Vadakkuthu Village Kurinchipadi Taluk Cuddalore District.

¶71

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

¶72

6/7

¶73

W.P. No. 7654 of 2024

¶74

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶75

Maya

¶76

W.P. No. 7654 of 2024

¶77

25.03.2024

¶78

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

¶79

7/7

D.Rameshkumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Rameshkumar 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

Govindarasan Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Credit Societies

Metro City House Owners Welfare Vs the District Collector

M.Javith Ali Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Jamuna Vs the Commissioner

C.Adhilakshmi, Vs the Commissioner

A.Sasikala Vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board