Hospitality wanderete that the writ petition was disposed of as the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of revision before approaching the High Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.22276 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.(MD)No.22276 of 2024
Kumaravel
... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 30.08.2024 in proceedings in Ne.Mu.No.A6/4548/2023 of the 3 rd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents to issue patta in Favor of the
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.22276 of 2024
petitioner in old S.No.348/3 and new S.No.348/1A, situated at T.Murugapatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District to an extent of 970 sq.ft in accordance with law within time limit as prescribed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Chezhiyan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate
O R D E R
The present writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 30.08.2024 in proceedings in Ne.Mu.No.A6/4548/2023, of the 3 rd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to issue patta in Favor of the petitioner in old S.No.348/3 and new S.No.348/1A, situated at T.Murugapatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District, to an extent of 970 sq.ft in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner was bequeathed the property in Survey No.348/3 and New Survey No.348/1A at T.Murugapatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District to an extent of 970 sq.ft under a Will, dated 08.01.2021, in Document No.1/2021 by his grand-parents. After the demise of the petitioner's grandparents, the petitioner was in continuous enjoyment and possession of the said
2/6
W.P.(MD)No.22276 of 2024
property. On 27.06.2022, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 4 th respondent for issuance of patta for the said property. As the 4 th respondent did not consider the petitioner's representation, the petitioner filed W.P(MD)No. 24137 of 2022 and this Court by an order, dated 04.11.2022 directed the 4 th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In pursuance to the order of this Court, the 4 th respondent dismissed the petitioner's representation vide proceedings, dated 17.03.2023. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 4 th respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3 rd respondent on 28.07.2023. As the 3 rd respondent did not take any action, the petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.10573 of 2024. This Court by an order, dated 29.04.2024 directed the 3 rd respondent to pass final orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of ten (10) weeks. The 3 rd respondent thereafter passed the impugned order on 30.08.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under the Patta Passbook Act. The petitioner can file a revision to the District Revenue Officer against the order of the 3 rd respondent.
3/6
W.P.(MD)No.22276 of 2024
4. It is seen that as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the order passed by the 3 rd respondent is a revisable order as revision lies to the District Revenue Officer. Even in the impugned order, the 3 rd respondent has specifically stated that the petitioner has the right of revision to the District Revenue Officer under Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act, 1983. The petitioner without exhausting the statutory remedy, has approached this Court. The petitioner has also not given any reason for by-passing the statutory remedy.
5. The petitioner is therefore given liberty to approach the District Revenue Officer by way of revision petition. The petitioner shall file the revision petition within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if the same is filed within the specified period, the District Revenue Officer shall not persist on limitation. The District Revenue Officer on receipt of the revision petition, shall issue notice of enquiry to the petitioner and all other interested parties and thereafter, pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks.
4/6
W.P.(MD)No.22276 of 2024
6. With the said observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No
costs.
12.11.2024
NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gbg
To:
5/6
W.P.(MD)No.22276 of 2024
N.MALA, J.
gbg
W.P.(MD)No.22276 of 2024
12.11.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be maintained when the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy of revision under Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act, 1983.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kumaravel
The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai
The District Collector, Trichy District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri Taluk
The Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk
N.Mala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
