Allowed

Thanabal v. The District Collector

Madras HC13 Aug 2024WP(MD)/19376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought to cancel pattas issued to rival claimants and obtain pattas in his favor regarding ancestral land. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the petition, directing the tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation and complete the enquiry by issuing notice and hearing respondents within six weeks. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, issue notices, and complete the enquiry and pass orders within 6 weeks.

Thanabal Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.19376 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.19376 of 2024

Thanabal

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶11

2.The District Revenue Officer, Trichy, Trichy District.

¶12

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirangam Division, Vannankovil, Trichy District.

¶13

4.The Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.

¶14

5.Karunamoorthy

¶15

6.Thirumoorthy .. Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4^th respondent to complete the enquiry, cancel the patta in Patta Nos.519 and 520 stands

¶17

_________Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.19376 of 2024

¶20

in the name of the 5^th and 6^th respondents and issue patta in the petitioner's name in respect of survey nos. 413/7 and 413/8 with an extent of 6 ¾ cents situated at Elamanam Village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kevinkaran

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to the 4^th respondent to complete the enquiry and thereafter, cancel the patta bearing Patta Nos.519 and 520 standing in the name of the 5^th and 6^th respondents and issue patta in

¶25

his name in respect of the property measuring an extent of 6 ¾ cents comprised in Survey No.413/7 & 413/8 Elamanam village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that the property is his ancestral property. His father and he had constructed a hut and were residing in the said premises for over 25 years. The hut got damaged due to natural calamities and they were residing near the lands. While so, the

¶27

_________Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.19376 of 2024

¶30

respondents 5 and 6 have trespassed into the petitioner’s land and tried to construct a house. The petitioner and his family had objected to the same and had vacated them. However, they had managed to get a patta in their name.

¶31

In the light of the rival claim, the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.311 of 1995 against the respondents 5 and 6 for permanent injunction and the 5^th respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.313 of 1995 against the petitioner and two others for a declaration and injunction. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the suit filed by the 5^th respondent was decreed. Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed A.S.No.84 and 85 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Trichy. By judgment and decree, dated 16.10.2003, the appellate Court was pleased to confirm the judgment and decree in O.S.No.311 of 1995 (filed by the petitioner) and allowed the appeal in A.S.No.84 of 2000, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court in so far as it related to the relief of declaration. The decree in O.S.No.313 of 2005 in so far as it relates to the relief of injunction was confirmed.

¶32

_________Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.19376 of 2024

¶35

Therefore, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the 3^rd respondent to cancel the patta issued in the name of the 5^th and 6^th respondents and issue patta in the name of the petitioner. However, no action has been taken on the said representation till date.

¶36

In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.01.2024 and complete the enquiry after giving notice and hearing the respondents 5 and 6 and pass orders by following due process of law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶37

With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No

¶38

costs.

¶39

13.08.2024

¶40

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

¶41

gbg

¶42

_________Page 4 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.19376 of 2024

¶45

¶46

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶47

2.The District Revenue Officer, Trichy, Trichy District.

¶48

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirangam Division, Vannankovil, Trichy District.

¶49

4.The Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.19376 of 2024

¶53

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶54

gbg

¶55

W.P.(MD) No.19376 of 2024

¶56

13.08.2024

¶57

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

¶58

_________Page 6 of 6

Thanabal v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thanabal 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

Samsudeen Vs The Special Tahsildar

Manickavasagam Vs The District Collector

Rajamahendran Vs Dr.K.J.Srinivasa

Sureshbabu.N.R Vs The District Revenue Court

R.Viveka Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Marimuthu Vs The District Collector