Dismissed

Habib Rahman a v. The District Collector

Madras HC13 Dec 2024WP(MD)/7676/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed to quash an order rejecting a request to rectify an error in a land patta survey number. The court held that the statutory appeal remedy under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act must be exhausted first.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is relegated to approach the third respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) by exhausting the appeal remedy under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 within two weeks.

Habib Rahman a Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.7676 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.7676 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.7139 & 7140 of 2023

A.Habib Rahman

...Petitioner

/Vs./

The District Collector, O/o. the District Collectorate Campus, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶11

The District Revenue Officer, O/o. the District Revenue Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶13

The Thasildhar, O/o. the Thasildhar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶14

Muthukrishnan

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

PRAYERRAYER

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.7676 of 2023

¶20

PRAYERRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4 th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.S. 866/2021 dated 17.11.2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the 4 th respondent to rectify the error crept in the Computer Patta No. 8938 regarding the Survey number entered as 3A1A instead of assigning new Survey Number at Srinivasapuram, Kodaikanal Town, Dindigul District to the total extent as 2.48 cents with correct location instead of 3 Ares and 17 Sq.Meter within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Ms.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan (R1 to R4) Additional Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 4 th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.S. 866/2021 dated 17.11.2022 with a consequential direction to the 4 th respondent to rectify

¶24

the error crept in the Computer Patta No. 8938, regarding the Survey number entered as 3A1A instead of assigning new Survey Number at Srinivasapuram, Kodaikanal Town, Dindigul District to the total extent

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.7676 of 2023

¶28

as 2.48 cents with correct location instead of 3 Ares and 17 Sq.Meter within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶29

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶30

3. The petitioner purchased the land in S.No.3, measuring to an extent of 2.48 cents situated at Block 20, Ward D, Srinivasapuram, Kodaikanal Town, Dindigul District, under the registered sale deed dated 24.12.2019, in Document No.2208 of 2019. After purchase of the said property, the petitioner submitted an application to the fourth respondent herein to mutate patta in his name along with necessary documents. While so, the petitioner came to understand that patta was issued with old survey number in S.No.3A1A measuring to an extent of 3 ares, 17 sq.m., instead of 2.48 cents by assigning new survey number. The petitioner immediately approached the fourth respondent and made an objection with regard to the erroneous entry. However, the fourth respondent did not respond. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation on 22.03.2021 to rectify the errors.

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.7676 of 2023

¶34

4. Even thereafter, no action was taken by the fourth respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.8624 of 2021 to rectify the error crept in patta No.8938, with respect to the said survey number. This Court, vide order dated 27.04.2021, disposed the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation. As the petitioner's representation was not considered, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.(MD)No.1150 of 2022 and during the pendency of the contempt petition, the fourth respondent passed the impugned order on 17.11.2022 rejecting the petitioner's request. The petitioner therefore filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶35

5. Admittedly, the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent is appealable under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act., 1983. The petitioner, without exhausting the alternate and efficacious remedy under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, has directly approached this Court without any justifiable or compelling reasons for the same. I am of the view that the writ petition cannot be entertained

¶36

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

¶37

4/6

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.7676 of 2023

¶39

and the petitioner should be relegated to the appellate authority ie., the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is relegated to exhaust the aforesaid appeal remedy before the third respondent under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983.

¶40

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the third respondent under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that the third respondent shall issue notice to the fifth respondent and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law by following the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and Rules. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶41

13.12.2024 Index : Yes / No (1/2) NCC : Yes / No Sm

¶42

5/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.7676 of 2023

N.MALA, J.

TO:

The District Collector, O/o. the District Collectorate Campus, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶49

The District Revenue Officer, O/o. the District Revenue Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶50

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶51

The Thasildhar, O/o. the Thasildhar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶52

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.7676 of 2023 (1/2)

¶53

Dated: 13.12.2024

¶54

6/6

¶55

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

Habib Rahman a v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habib Rahman a v. The District Collector

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

N.K.S. Divan Sikknadar Mydeen Vs the District Collector

Karthikeyan Vs Government of India

A.Ramakrishnan Vs The District Collector

Sirajudin Vs the District Collector

S.Thangarasu Vs The District Collector

Muthukrishnan .R Vs The District Collector