Disposed

S.Suganya v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Jan 2024WP/8211/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patta granted by Tahsildar to respondents was challenged as violative of natural justice while civil title suits were pending. Court held revenue authorities cannot issue patta during pending civil disputes and kept all such proceedings in abeyance until suits conclude.

What did the court decide?

Impugned patta order and related revenue proceedings kept in abeyance till civil suits are disposed; liberty to apply afresh thereafter.

S.Suganya Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.8211 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.8211 of 2015 and

¶7

M.P.No.2 of 2015

¶8

S.Suganya

¶9

S.Ramgopal

¶10

S.Vaishnavi

¶11

... Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

The District Collector, Erode District, Erode – 638 011.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode District, Erode.

¶15

The Special Tahsildar, Natham Nilavari Thittam, Erode Taluk, Erode – 1.

¶16

K.Rajammal

¶17

S.Prem Naryanan ... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent culminated in and by his proceedings in S.R.No.478 of 2011 dated

¶19

Page 1 of 7

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.8211 of 2015

¶22

13.08.2013 quash the same.

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr.V.S.Kesavan

¶24

For R1 to R3 : Mr.G.Krishna Raja, Additional Government Pleader

¶25

For R4 & R5 : No appearance O R D E R

¶26

The Proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 13.08.2013 granting patta in

¶27

favour of the respondents 4 and 5 is sought to be quashed in the present writ proceedings.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.S.Kesavan would

¶29

submit that the patta originally stood in favour of the forefather of the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5. By providing false information, the respondents 4 and 5 had approached the Tahsildar for grant of patta in respect of the entire property. The Tahsildar, without affording any opportunity to the petitioners, had granted patta and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, both on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and false information provided for securing patta.

¶30

Page 2 of 7

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.8211 of 2015

¶33

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

¶34

respondents 1 to 3 would oppose the said contention by stating that there is an appeal provision available for the petitioner to redress his grievances and in view of the presence of alternate remedy under the Act, the Writ Petition is to be rejected. Under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, the Tahsildar is empowered to grant patta to a owner. Thus, it is pre-condition that a person, who is submitting an application should establish that he is the owner of the property. In the event of any civil dispute exist between the parties, the revenue authorities cannot issue any patta and they have to return the application with a liberty to the applicant to represent the same only after resolving the civil dispute between them. In other words, the revenue authorities have to relegate the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for the purpose of resolving the civil disputes and to establish their civil rights.

¶35

It is brought to the notice of this Court that two civil suits in O.S.No.331 of 2011 and O.S.No.210 of 2013 are pending on the Principal Sub Court, Erode. During the pendency of a Civil Suit, the revenue authorities cannot issue patta in favour of one party, as such proceedings

¶36

Page 3 of 7

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.8211 of 2015

¶39

would cause prejudice to the other side and therefore, this Court is inclined

¶40

to keep all such revenue proceedings in abeyance till such time, the Civil

¶41

Suits are disposed of or the dispute reach finality.

¶42

In view of the fact that the Civil Suits are pending between the parties, all the revenue proceedings, including the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar in the present Writ Petition in proceedings dated 13.08.2013 in S.R.No.478 of 2011 are kept in abeyance. Either of the party is at liberty to submit an application before the revenue authorities after disposal of the suit for grant of patta, cancellation of patta or to mutate the revenue records under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. It is needless to state that the parties have to establish their civil rights independently based on the documents available on record. The impugned proceedings cannot be taken as conclusive proof for the purpose of establishing title or ownership.

¶43

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶44

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

18.01.2024

skr

Page 4 of 7

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

¶49

W.P.No.8211 of 2015

¶50

Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶51

Page 5 of 7

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.8211 of 2015

¶54

¶55

The District Collector, Erode District, Erode – 638 011.

¶56

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode District, Erode.

¶57

The Special Tahsildar, Natham Nilavari Thittam, Erode Taluk, Erode – 1.

¶58

Page 6 of 7

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.No.8211 of 2015

¶61

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶62

skr

¶63

W.P.No.8211 of 2015

¶64

18.01.2024

¶65

Page 7 of 7

¶66

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

S.Suganya v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Suganya 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

Srinivasan Vasudevan Vs Unionof India

Shabuddeen, Vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Mrs.D.Kasthuri, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Chinnadurai Subramani Vs The Secretary to Government of India

V.P.Baskaran Vs The District Revenue Officer

M/s. Marg Business Park P Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of