Dismissed¶53

Lurdhu Mary(died) (Substituted By)P-1 Jesu Mariya Susai, v. District Revenue Officer

Madras HC3 Feb 2025WA(MD)/1595/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation of revenue records; patta cancellation by RDO; DRO revision dismissed; writ petition maintainability; non-suiting in writ jurisdiction; disputed questions of fact; recourse to civil court; Clause XV Letters Patent writ appeal; settlement deed 30.08.1976; S.No.124/10 Orumaniyendhal Village; Konathan Oorani water body; O.S.No.119 of 1995; A.S.No.18 of 1997; S.A.No.2044 of 1999 dismissed for non-prosecution; W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018; Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD)No.19249 of 2018.

What did the court decide?

None - writ appeal dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶53

Lurdhu Mary(died) (Substituted By)P-1 Jesu Mariya Susai, Vs District Revenue Officer — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - writ appeal dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge was right in non-suiting Lurdhu Mary, i.e., dismissing W.P.(MD)No.19249 of 2018 as not maintainable. +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

This Court held that the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge is justified: since disputed questions of fact are involved, the aggrieved litigant must go before the jurisdictional Civil Court (or pursue the pending civil litigation), and therefore the Single Judge was right in non-suiting Lurdhu Mary; interference with the impugned dismissal is not warranted.

¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Clause XV of Letters Patent), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court - W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018 with C.M.P.(MD)No.11478 of 2018, decided 03.02.2025; bench G.R. Swaminathan and M. Jothiraman JJ., judgment delivered by G.R. Swaminathan, J. Lurdhu Mary (since dead; LRs appellants 1-4 substituted) had obtained mutation of revenue records for 4 1/2 cents in S.No.124/10, Orumaniyendhal Village on a settlement deed dated 30.08.1976 executed by her father Susi Yakkappan. Brother Susi Rathinam's representation (04.07.2008) led the RDO, Devakottai to cancel the patta (15.12.2009); the DRO, Sivagangai dismissed her revision affirming the cancellation (28.07.2018). The Single Judge dismissed W.P.(MD)No.19249 of 2018 (05.09.2018) as not maintainable, citing a civil ownership dispute and a pending second appeal. The Division Bench affirmed: with disputed questions of fact involved, the aggrieved litigant must go before the jurisdictional civil court; interference not warranted; appeal dismissed, no costs, connected CMP closed. Background: department's stand that S.No.124/9 is admittedly a water body (Konathan Oorani) with no physical boundary from S.No.124/10; earlier partition suit O.S.No.119 of 1995 and A.S.No.18 of 1997 dismissed; S.A.No.2044 of 1999 dismissed for non-prosecution on 05.07.2023.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)No.11478 of 2018

¶7

Lurdhu Mary (Died)

¶8

1.Jesu Mariya Susai

¶9

2.James Jeyapal

¶10

3.Rani

¶11

4.Annamary

¶12

... Appellants

¶13

(Appellants 1 to 4 / LRs of the deceased sole appellant are substituted in the place of the deceased sole appellant vide order dated 20.08.2024 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.7818 of 2024 in W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018 by PVJ & KKRKJ)

¶14

Vs.

¶15

1.The District Revenue Officer, O/o.District Revenue Office, Sivagangai District.

¶16

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Revenue Divisional Office, Revenue Department, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶17

1/8

¶18

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

¶19

W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018

¶20

3.The Thasildar,, O/o.Thasildar, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶21

4.Susi Rathinam (Died)

5.Amirtha Arul Mary

6.Alex Arockiasamy

7.Amalarani

8.Annai

9.Augustine Arockiasamy

¶27

10.Anbuselvam ... Respondents (Respondents 5 to 10 / LRs of the deceased 4^th respondent are substituted vide order dated 29.11.2024 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.12862 of 2024 in W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018 by TKRJ & NSJ)

¶28

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 05.09.2018 passed in W.P.(MD)No.19249 of 2018 on the file of this Court.

¶29

For Appellants : Mr.P.Balamurugan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Spl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3. Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan for R5 to R10

¶30

2/8

¶31

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

¶32

W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018

¶33

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)

¶34

Heard both sides.

¶35

2.This writ appeal was filed by one Lurdhu Mary questioning the

¶36

dismissal of W.P.(MD)No.19249 of 2018 vide order dated 05.09.2018. Lurdhu Mary passed away during the pendency of this writ appeal. Her legal heirs have come on record. Lurdhu Mary and the fourth respondent namely, Susi Rathinam were siblings. Their father namely, Susi Yakkappan had died. The claim of Lurdhu Mary was that Susi Yakkappan had executed settlement deed settling 4 ½ cents in S.No.124/10 in Orumaniyendhal Village. It is not in dispute that the revenue record in respect of the said survey number stood in the name of Susi Yakkappan. Lurdhu Mary sought mutation of revenue record on the strength of the settlement deed dated 30.08.1976 executed by her father. Her request was accepted and mutation was also effected. Thereafter, her brother / Susi Rathinam sent representation dated 04.07.2008 seeking cancellation. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai vide order dated 15.12.2009 cancelled the patta issued in favour of Lurdhu Mary. 3/8

¶37

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

¶38

W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018

¶39

Aggrieved by the same, Lurdhu Mary filed revision before the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai vide order dated 28.07.2018 affirmed the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai and dismissed Lurdhu Mary's revision. Questioning the same, Lurdhu Mary filed W.P.(MD)No.19249 of 2018. It was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 05.09.2018 in the following terms:-

¶40

“4.From the materials and pleadings disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it appears that there is a civil dispute in regard to the ownership of the property in question between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and in regard to the same, a second appeal is also pending before this Court. Moreover, from the orders passed by the second and first respondents, it could be seen that the authorities have examined various documents filed in support of the rival claims made by the petitioner and the fourth respondent and had come to the conclusion on certain factual basis.

¶41

5.Since the writ petition is filed against the orders passed by the second and first respondents and which would involve adjudication of factual disputes in regard to the ownership of the survey number in question, the same cannot

¶42

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

¶43

4/8

¶44

W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018

¶45

be done in a writ jurisdiction of this Court. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the second and first respondents, it is always open to him to obtain some orders in the pending second appeal or he can approach the competent civil Court in regard to the enforcement of his claim as against the fourth respondent.

¶46

6.In view of the above position, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition as it is not maintainable and therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.”

¶47

Challenging the same, this writ appeal came to be filed.

¶48

3.The question that calls for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was right in non-suiting Lurdhu Mary.

¶49

4.The specific stand of the department is that S.No.124/9 is admittedly a water body (Konathan Oorani). It is further claimed by the department that there is no physical boundary between S.No.124/9 and S.No.124/10. According to them, Konathan Oorani encompasses S.No.124/9 as well as S.No.124/10. It is also pointed out that Lurdhu Mary filed O.S.No.119 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court,

¶50

5/8

¶51

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

¶52

W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018

¶53

Tiruvadanai claiming partition. S.No.124/10 was also included in the suit schedule. The suit was dismissed and A.S.No.18 of 1997 was dismissed by the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram. Questioning the same, Lurdhu Mary filed S.A.No.2044 of 1999 before this Court. The second appeal suffered dismissal for non-prosecution on 05.07.2023. In this factual background, the learned Single Judge was of the view that since disputed questions of fact are involved, it is only just and proper that the aggrieved litigant must go before the jurisdictional Civil Court. We are of the view that the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge is justified. Interference is not warranted and the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶54

(G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,) 03.02.2025

¶55

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶56

To:-

¶57

1.The District Revenue Officer, O/o.District Revenue Office, Sivagangai District.

¶58

6/8

¶59

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

¶60

W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018

¶61

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Revenue Divisional Office, Revenue Department, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶62

3.The Thasildar,, O/o.Thasildar, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶63

7/8

¶64

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

¶65

W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018

¶66

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶67

ias

¶68

W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018

¶69

03.02.2025

¶70

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

¶71

8/8

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.19249 of 2018, dismissing Lurdhu Mary's writ petition as not maintainable (civil/factual ownership dispute; litigant directed to pending second appeal or competent civil court).¶28
Madras High Court (learned Single Judge) · 05.09.2018
Prior proceeding
Settlement deed dated 30.08.1976 executed by Susi Yakkappan (father) settling 4 1/2 cents in S.No.124/10, Orumaniyendhal Village; Lurdhu Mary sought and obtained mutation of the revenue record on its strength.¶36
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.119 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvadanai - partition suit filed by Lurdhu Mary, with S.No.124/10 included in the suit schedule.¶52
Prior proceeding
A.S.No.18 of 1997 (appeal arising from the partition suit) dismissed by the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram.¶53
Prior proceeding
S.A.No.2044 of 1999 filed by Lurdhu Mary before this Court against the appellate dismissal; the second appeal suffered dismissal for non-prosecution on 05.07.2023.¶53
Prior proceeding
Representation dated 04.07.2008 sent by Susi Rathinam (brother of Lurdhu Mary) seeking cancellation of the patta/mutation.¶36
Prior proceeding
Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai cancelled the patta issued in favour of Lurdhu Mary vide order dated 15.12.2009.¶36
Prior proceeding
Revision filed by Lurdhu Mary before the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai; DRO vide order dated 28.07.2018 affirmed the RDO's cancellation order and dismissed the revision.¶39
Prior proceeding
W.P.(MD)No.19249 of 2018 filed by Lurdhu Mary questioning the DRO's revision-dismissal order; dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 05.09.2018 as not maintainable (see impugned_order).¶39
Prior proceeding
Background - department's specific stand (recorded but not adjudicated by this Court): S.No.124/9 is admittedly a water body (Konathan Oorani); no physical boundary between S.No.124/9 and S.No.124/10; the Oorani is claimed to encompass both survey numbers.¶49

Lurdhu Mary(died) (Substituted By)P-1 Jesu Mariya Susai, v. District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lurdhu Mary(died) (Substituted By)P-1 Jesu Mariya Susai, v. District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Thennagaventhan, Vs the Sub Registrar-Ii (Joint) Office

The Commissioner of Customs Vs T.Shanmugasundaram

The Regional Transport Authority Vs K.Balamurugan