Quashed

O.Sethuraman v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Aug 2024WP(MD)/17214/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of this writ petition where the petitioner challenged the issuance of patta to a rival claimant without notice, during a pending partition suit. The Court quashed the order and directed restoration of status quo ante.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of status quo ante to the original patta name within two weeks; interim protection during pending appeal.

O.Sethuraman Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.17214 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.17214 of 2016

O.Sethuraman

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

¶11

Madurai District, Madurai.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer,

¶13

Madurai.

¶14

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶15

Madurai.

¶16

4.The Tahsildar, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai.

¶17

5.S.Selvaran

¶18

6.Mohan ... Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 4^th respondent in

¶20

_________Page 1 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.17214 of 2016

¶23

Na.Ka.No.8299/15/B, dated 23.06.2016, quash the same and direct the 4^th respondent to issue patta to the petitioner and other legal heirs of Meenakshi Ammal in respect of the landed property measuring 73 cents in S.No.132/9 of Virattipathu, Kochadai Village, Madurai South taluk, Madurai district within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian

¶25

For R1 – R4 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The present writ petition is filed to quash the order, dated 23.06.2016 passed by the 4^th respondent and to direct the 4^th respondent to issue patta to the petitioner and other legal heirs of Meenakshi Ammal in respect of the landed property measuring 73 cents in S.No.132/9 of Virattipathu, Kochadai Village, Madurai South taluk, Madurai district

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that before the patta had been issued in favour of the 6^th respondent, no notice had been issued to him

¶29

and there was a suit pending between the parties regarding title to the property. The petitioner’s case is that the suit for partition has been

¶30

_________Page 2 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.17214 of 2016

¶33

decided in favour of the petitioner and therefore, he is entitled to a joint patta. Suppressing this fact, the 6^th respondent has moved the revenue authorities for grant of patta in his name on the basis of the settlement deed said to have been executed by the petitioner’s mother Meenakshi Ammal in his favour. The claim of the 6^th respondent under the settlement deed has been rejected by the trial Court and the matter is pending appeal. The 6^th respondent has thereafter filed a writ petition for a direction to the revenue authorities to grant them a patta without making the petitioner as a party to the said proceedings.

¶34

The transfer of patta in favour of the 6^th respondent pending the suit is an aberration considering that fact that Act clearly specifies that where there is an issue with title, the same has to be sort it out by the Civil Court. When the suit is pending and after a decree in favour of the petitioner and others, patta has been transferred in the name of the 6^th respondent only on the basis of an appeal having been filed by him challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.589 of 1996. The basis on which the order has been passed by the 4^th respondent is erroneous.

¶35

_________Page 3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.17214 of 2016

¶38

Further when an appeal is pending, the 4^th respondent ought to have dismissed the request and directed the 6^th respondent to await the result in the appeal and thereafter, approach this Court. However, considering the fact that the patta which originally stood in the name of Meenakshi Ammal has been transferred in the name of the 6^th respondent, the respondents are directed to restore the status quo ante with reference to the patta and party shall work out their remedies once an appeal is disposed of. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶39

With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶40

No costs.

¶41

20.08.2024

¶42

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes

¶43

gbg

¶44

_________Page 4 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.17214 of 2016

¶47

¶48

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶49

2.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai.

¶50

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai.

¶51

4.The Tahsildar, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai.

¶52

Page 5 of 6

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.(MD) No.17214 of 2016

¶55

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶56

gbg

¶57

W.P.(MD) No.17214 of 2016

¶58

20.08.2024

¶59

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

¶60

_________Page 6 of 6

O.Sethuraman v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.Sethuraman 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

Murugan Vs the District Collector /

Chitra Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Mahaboobpalayam Sunnathul Jamath Masjid Vs The District Collector

Mayalagan Vs The District Collector

Balakrishnan Vs The District Collector

Kaliraj Vs The Tahsildar