Allowed

Junaideen .S.M.a v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC24 Oct 2024WP(MD)/20179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed the petitioner's plea to add his name and siblings to land survey numbers. The court directed the Tahsildar to consider objections from impleaded respondents and pending suits, issuing orders un-influenced by a prior recommendation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider objections of impleaded respondents and pending suits, pass orders within 12 weeks, uninfluenced by the recommendation dated 12.01.2024, based on documents to

Junaideen .S.M.a Vs The Tahsildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2024

S.M.A.Junaideen

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram Taluka, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

2.The Deputy Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram Taluka, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

3.Mohammed Arabi

¶13

4.Adam Malik

¶14

5.N.Sathik Batcha

¶15

(R3 to R5 have been impleaded vide order dated 24.10.2024) ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to add petitioner

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2024

¶20

name and his siblings name in Survey Nos.463/6, 453/2, 462/5, 441/5, 440/5B, 439/1, 401/1, 401/10, 406/5, 409/1, 430/1A, 430/2, 432, 445/3, 452 in Patta No. 7572 situated at Chakkarakottai village, Ramanathapuram District in view of the proceeding of the 1st respondent in Moo.Mu.A7/109/2023 dated 12.01.2024 within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶21

For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The above writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to add the petitioner and his siblings names in SNos.463/6, 453/2, 462/5, 441/5, 440/5B, 439/1, 401/1, 401/10, 406/5, 409/1, 430/1A, 430/2, 432, 445/3 and 452 in Patta No.7572 at Chakkarakottai village, Ramanathapuram District in view of the proceeding of the first respondent in Moo.Mu.A7/109/2023 dated 12.01.2024.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that the property in question belonged to his forefather, Seenikatti, through whom the petitioner traced title to. The petitioner had approached the Revenue Officials for adding his name and the 2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2024

¶27

name of his siblings in patta No.7572. However, they had not taken any steps to pass orders on this representation. Therefore, the writ petition.

¶28

Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on

¶29

behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the departmental action has been taken against the first respondent for issuing the order dated 12.01.2024, since there were several suits pending in respect of the suit survey numbers, nearly 7 in number. Therefore, until the disposal of the suits, the respondents cannot proceed to make any changes in the patta. A detailed counter has also been filed on these lines by the second respondent.

¶30

Considering the fact that the representation for grant of patta has been made, the Writ Petition stands allowed directing the first respondent to take into consideration the objections of the third respondent, who has now been impleaded as also the petitioner and various suits that are pending before the civil Court and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order shall be passed un-influenced by the recommendation dated 12.01.2024 and on the basis of the documents to be

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2024

¶34

submitted.

¶35

No costs.

¶36

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

24.10.2024

1.The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram Taluka, Ramanathapuram District.

¶41

2.The Deputy Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram Taluka, Ramanathapuram District.

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2024

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2024

¶48

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶49

¶50

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2024

¶51

24.10.2024

¶52

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

¶53

6/6

Junaideen .S.M.a v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junaideen .S.M.a v. The Tahsildar

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

Santhappan Vs the Special District Revenue

S.Renganathan Vs Mohana Sundaram

Muneeswari Vs The District Collector

G.S.Edwin Vs The District Revenue Officer

S.Karuppiah Vs the District Collector

J.Soma Sundarraj Vs Government of Tamil Nadu