Allowed

V.Renuka v. The Tahsildhar

Madras HC1 Oct 2024WP(MD)/23386/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an order rejecting their application for transfer of patta to land purchased from legal heirs of the recorded patta holder. The court found the patta was a regular patta, not a conditional/assigned patta, held the rejection without jurisdiction, set aside the order and remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order dated 10.05.2024 set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration with direction to issue a speaking order within eight weeks.

V.Renuka Vs The Tahsildhar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.23386 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.23386 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)Nos.19787 & 19788 of 2024

¶8

1.V.Renuka

¶9

2.A.Dhandapani .. Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Tahsildar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul.

¶12

2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent, dated 10.05.2024 in File No.2024/0103/13/310036 and quash the same and consequent by direct the respondents to grant patta to the petitioners for the lands in Survey No. 601/1 measuring 0.34.00 acres.

¶14

_________Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.23386 of 2024

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respondent, dated 10.05.2024 in and by which the request for grant of patta has been rejected and consequently seeking grant of patta, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner that the lands measuring an extent of 0.34.00 ares in Survey No.601/1, Thotanuthu village, Dindigul East Taluk belong to one Kumarakudumban. He was issued with patta in Patta No.275 and all the revenue records including UDR 'A' register stood in his name. The said Kumarakudumban had 3 daughters, namely Periyakkal, Lakshmi and Ramayi, of which Periyakkal died on 30.11.2007 leaving Ponnamal, Paalamalai and Adaikkan as legal heirs. Of these three, Paalamalai died on 13.11.2012 leaving behind one Mariyammal as her legal heir. Lakshmi had no issues and the said

¶21

_________Page 2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.23386 of 2024

¶24

Ramayi had three daughters, namely Ammasi, Ponnammal and Kanniyappan. On 01.06.1984, the said Kumarakudumban had passed away.

¶25

The said Lakshmi, daughter of Kumarakudumban had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Meenal in respect of 84 cents. Based on this power, the said Meenal had sold 600 sq.ft in favour of one Rajavel under Document No.2015/2013. This sale has been effected after the said Lakshmi had cancelled the power in favour of Meenal vide document no.36/2011.

¶26

Thereafter, the petitioners have purchased 82 cents land in the aforesaid survey number from all the legal heirs of Kumarakudumban including Lakshmi under a registered sale deed, dated 17.04.2015. The sale deed was kept pending on the ground of deficit stamp duty. This was paid and the documents were returned on 15.05.2015. Meanwhile, the said Meenal power agent of Lakshmi had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners in O.S.No.118 of 2018 and ultimately,

¶27

_________Page 3 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.23386 of 2024

¶30

the parties had compromised and the suit was dismissed as settled out of Court by judgment and decree, dated 15.02.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners had submitted an application for transfer of patta from the name of Kumarakudumban to the petitioners. The same has been rejected by an order, dated 10.056.2024 on the ground that it is a conditional patta. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

When the matter came up for admission, a question was posed to the learned Additional Government Pleader as to whether the lands were assigned lands and if so, he has to produce the order showing the assignment and the condition that has been so violated. There was no documents to prove the same. A perusal of the patta filed along with the petition issued in the name of Kumarakudumban clearly shows that it is a regular patta issued under Section 10(1) of the Act. That being the case, the rejection is absolutely without any jurisdiction and there is a nonapplication of mind on the part of the 2^nd respondent.

¶32

_________Page 4 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.23386 of 2024

¶35

In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 10.05.2024 is

¶36

set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2^nd respondent for considering the matter afresh. The 2^nd respondent is directed to pass a speaking order stating which condition has been violated by the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) 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

01.10.2024

¶40

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gbg To

¶41

1.The Tahsildar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul.

¶42

2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul.

¶43

_________Page 5 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.23386 of 2024

¶46

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶47

gbg

¶48

W.P.(MD) No.23386 of 2024

¶49

01.10.2024

¶50

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

¶51

_________Page 6 of 6

V.Renuka v. The Tahsildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Renuka v. The Tahsildhar

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

Karuppanan Vs The District Revenue Officer

Sivakumar .D Vs The Sub Collector (Revenue)

Nambi Konar E Vs The Special District Revenue Officer

Kursheed Sharfudeen Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Muthupandi Vs The District Collector

Sreeram G Vs The Tahsildar