Allowed

Karuppaiah R v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC19 Aug 2024WP(MD)/5062/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Tahsildar's rejection of a patta application. The Court held that pendency of a writ regarding unauthorized construction is not a valid ground to deny transfer of patta based on a valid sale deed. It directed the Tahsildar to grant patta within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the First Respondent (Tahsildar) to transfer patta for Survey No.96/29 in the name of the beneficial owner within four weeks.

Karuppaiah R Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.5062 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.5062 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.4749 and 4751 of 2023

¶8

R.Karuppaiah ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Tahsildar,

Paramakudi Taluk,

Paramakudi,

¶13

Ramanathapuram District.

¶14

2.The Firka Surveyor,

¶15

Madandai Village, Paramakudi Taluk,

¶16

Ramnad District.

¶17

3.The Village Administrative Officer,

¶18

Madandai Village, Paramakudi Taluk,

¶19

Ramnad District. ... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

¶21

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining

¶22

to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings

¶23

dated 24.02.2023 in file No.2023/0105/27/222909 and consequently

¶24

directing the first respondent herein to grant patta in favour of the

¶25

_____________ Page 1 of 5_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.5062 of 2024

¶27

petitioner in S.No.96/29 situated at Gowripatti Village, Madandai Group, Paramakudi Taluk, on the basis of sale deed dated 26.12.2022 vide Doc.No.6508/2022 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Paramakudi within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sathiswaran for M/s.C.Jeganathan For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶31

This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 24.02.2023 in file No. 2023/0105/27/222909 and to direct the first respondent herein to grant patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in S.No.96/29 situates at Gowripatti Village, Madandai Group, Paramakudi Taluk, on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.12.2022 vide Doc.No.6508/2022 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Paramakudi.

¶32

2. Having purchased the land of an extent of 0.06.00 hectares in Survey No.96/29 of M.Gowripatti Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District in the name of Yadavar Sangam represented by him as its President, the petitioner sought for mutation of revenue records vide his application dated 27.01.2023. The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk, rejected the application on the ground that a Court case is pending.

¶33

_____________ Page 2 of 5_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.5062 of 2024

¶35

Details of the Court case have not been set out in the order of rejection. It is seen that a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.560 of 2023 which has been filed by one Govindaraj claiming that the petitioner herein is putting up unauthorized construction in the land in question alone was pending as on the date. The pendency of a Public Interest Litigation complaining of unauthorized construction being put up cannot and will not deter the Tahsildar from transferring patta. Request of transfer of patta made on the basis of a valid sale deed cannot be rejected on such flimsy ground. Therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. There will be a direction to the Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk to transfer patta for Survey No.96/29 of an extent of 0.06.00 hectares in the name of Yadavar Sangam, M.Gowripatti, represented by its present President. The needful shall be done within four weeks from today.

¶36

3. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶37

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 19.08.2024

¶38

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

¶39

_____________ Page 3 of 5_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.5062 of 2024

¶41

To:

¶42

1.The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶43

2.The Firka Surveyor, Madandai Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramnad District

¶44

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Madandai Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramnad District.

¶45

_____________ Page 4 of 5_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.5062 of 2024

¶47

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶48

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.5062 of 2023

¶50

19.08.2024

¶51

_____________ Page 5 of 5_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Karuppaiah R v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppaiah R 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

Edwin Selvakumar Vs Lalitha Sarojini

The Commissioner Of School Education Vs S Christobel Bobby

D.Umasakthi Vs The District Collector

Kr.K.Karuppaiya Vs N.Mangayarkarasi

R.Devaraj Vs The Assistant Superintending

Rajaram Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee