Dismissed¶34

S. Subramanian v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Apr 2025WA/1072/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ appeal dismissed; Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; patta land versus Government Poromboke; Patta Passbook Rules procedures; disputed civil-nature facts outside writ jurisdiction; judicial review cannot determine title or ownership; relegation to competent civil Court; liberty to approach civil Court; W.P.No.29487 of 2023 order dated 11.10.2023; representation dated 30.05.2023 to District Collector and RDO Guindy; Madras High Court; decided 15.04.2025; bench S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the appellant to approach the civil Court; writ appeal dismissed with no costs. ¶34

S. Subramanian Vs The District Collector — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WA.No.1072 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

WA.No.1072 of 2025

S.Subramanian

... Appellant

Vs.

The District Collector, Chennai.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer, South Chennai Region, Guindy, Chennai - 32.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Guindy Taluk, Chennai - 32. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 11.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.29487 of 2023 and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the appellant's representation dated 30.05.2023.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.J.Sivananda Raaj Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Venkatasubramaniyan

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

WA.No.1072 of 2025

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶21

Under assail is the order dated 11.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.29487 of

¶22

¶23

The grievance of the appellant is that Patta land has been

¶24

erroneously stated as 'Government Poromboke' land despite the fact that the appellant produced title documents.

¶25

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that the procedures as contemplated under the Patta Passbook Rules, have not been followed. The Authorities are expected to scrutinize the documents in order to find out the genuinity of the entries made.

¶26

4. Mr.A.Selvendran, the learned Special Government Pleader

¶27

appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that the

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

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

¶30

WA.No.1072 of 2025

¶31

schedule mentioned in the title document is not tallying with the extract from the Permanent/Town Survey Land Register produced by the appellant before

¶32

this Court.

¶33

Disputed facts of civil nature cannot be adjudicated before the writ Court. All such disputes are to be resolved based on the documents and evidences and by approaching the competent civil Court of law. High Court in exercise of powers of judicial review cannot scrutinize the documents, entries in Revenue Registers etc., for the purpose of forming a final opinion regarding title or ownership of a person. Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that the writ Court has rightly relegated the appellant to approach the civil Court for the purpose of resolving the issues.

¶34

Granting liberty to the appellant to approach the civil Court, the present Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

¶35

[S.M.S,J.] [K.R.S,J.] 15.04.2025

¶36

veda Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

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

¶39

WA.No.1072 of 2025