Allowed

Periyakaruppan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC14 Aug 2024WP(MD)/19412/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to the Tahsildar to implement the Revenue Divisional Officer's order setting aside an unauthorized sub-division and directing fresh subdivision and patta transfer in respect of S.No.135/8B, Papathipatti Village. The court allowed the petition directing compliance within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar directed to comply with RDO order dated 29.04.2024 by surveying and fixing boundaries of petitioner's 31-cent property in S.No.135/8B within eight weeks.

Periyakaruppan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.19412 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.19412 of 2024

Periyakaruppan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office, Usilampatti, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, O/o. Usilampatti Taluk Office, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to implement the order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in Pa.Mu.No.5244/2023/AA3, dated 29.04.2024 in regard to change of

¶13

Patta in petitioner's favour for the property situated in S.No. 135/8B and also in FMB Sketch of Papathipatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶14

_________Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.19412 of 2024

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Naveenkumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to the second respondent to implement the order of the first respondent dated 29.04.2024 in and by which the first respondent had set aside the order under which the second respondent had subdivided the the petitioner's property in S.No.135/8B of Papathipatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, without notice to him and directed fresh subdivision.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such a categoric order by the first respondent which in turn was a sequel to the orders of this Court passed in W.P.(MD) No.27569 of 2023, dated 21.11.2023, the second respondent has not complied with the directions of the first respondent.

¶21

_________Page 2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.19412 of 2024

¶24

The first respondent while allowing the application filed by the

¶25

petitioner for cancelling the sub-division and for transfer of patta, had passed the following order:

¶26

“NkYk;> kDjhuhhpd; fpiua Mtzj;jpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s ehd;Fkhypd; mbg;gilapNyNa Gyg;glj;jpYk; cl;gphpT nra;J gjpTfs; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;bUf;f Ntz;Lk;.

¶27

mt;thW ,y;yhky; Gyg;glj;jpy; kl;Lk; gjpT Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;L G+kpapy; mjw;fhd mikg;Gfs; Vjk; ,y;iy vd;gjhf tprhuizapd;

¶28

mbg;gilapy; njupatUfpwJ. MfNt jhth Gyj;jpy; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;l cl;gphpT Nfhg;G Mtz vz;.b.Nf.8V / 656 / 2014 ehs;.03.03.2014-d;gb toq;fg;gl;l gl;lhit uj;J nra;J mjw;F Ke;ija epiyapy; gl;lh vz;.908-y; cs;sgb kDjhuh; kw;Wk; vjph;kDjhuh;

¶29

Mfpa ,Ujug;gpdiuAk; Nrh;j;J gug;G 0.42.0 Vh;]; kDjhuh; jpU nghpafUg;gd; - 1> vjph;kDjhuh;fs; jpUkjp xr;rk;khs; - 2> jpU itukzp – 3> jpUkjp Nghj;jk;khs; - 4> Mfpa ehd;F egh;fs; ngahpy; $l;Lgl;lh jhf;fy; nra;a cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. Nkw;fz;l cj;jutpid fpuhkf;fzf;FfspYk;> tl;lf; fzf;FfspYk; khWjy; nra;aTk; ,jd; %yk;

¶30

_________Page 3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.19412 of 2024

¶33

Mizaplg;gLfpwJ. kDjhuh; kw;Wk; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; jq;fs; iftrk; cs;s Mtzq;fis nfhz;Lk; epyg;gug;gpy; mDgt mbg;gilapy; Gjpa cl;gphpT nra;tjw;F crpyk;gl;b tllhl;rpahplk; kDr;nra;tjw;F ; crpyk;gl;b tl;lhl;rpahplk; kDr;nra;J nfhs;sTk; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.”

¶34

This order has been passed on 29.04.2024 and the second respondent is yet to comply with the same. Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the second respondent to comply with the order of the first respondent dated 29.04.2024 by surveying and fixing the boundaries of the petitioner's property measuring an extent of 31 cents situate in S.No.135/8B of Papathipatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶35

14.08.2024

¶36

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

¶37

abr

¶38

_________Page 4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.19412 of 2024

¶41

¶42

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office, Usilampatti, Madurai.

¶43

2.The Tahsildar, O/o. Usilampatti Taluk Office, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai.

¶44

Page 5 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.19412 of 2024

¶47

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶48

abr

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.19412 of 2024

¶50

Dated: 14.08.2024

¶51

_________Page 6 of 6

¶52

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

Periyakaruppan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Periyakaruppan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Sureshbabu.N.R Vs The District Revenue Court

R.Viveka Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Marimuthu Vs The District Collector

Shyam Vs The State of Tamilnadu

K.Karuppusamy Vs The District Collector

Prasanna Venkatesh Vs The Secretary