S.v.S.Saravanan Vs The District Revenue Officer

to remove the entries in the revenue records in respect of the properties situated in Survey No.310/5, Navalpattu Village, Trichy District, by considering his representation dated 06.05.2025.

¶32

2.Heard the arguments of Mr.S.Vikram, learned counsel appearing

¶33

for the petitioner, Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the seventh

¶34

Page 2 of 8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.15931 of 2025

¶37

respondent. Since no adverse order is passed against the respondents 3 to 6, notice to them is dispensed with. By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶38

3.According to the petitioner, 17.50 acres of land in

¶39

Survey No.310/5 originally belonged to the petitioner's mother, Latha and her brother, A.M.Ashokan, under two registered sale deeds dated 02.04.2007 and 09.04.2007. It is further stated that 50 cents of land was given in favour of the temple and the remaining 17 Acres has been in possession and enjoyment of Latha and Ashokan. The said persons executed a general power of attorney on 11.11.2020 in favour of the petitioner appointing him as power agent to deal with the property. Based on the said power deed, the above said property was divided into 50 plots and sold to number of persons. In these circumstances, the respondents 3 and 4 filed a collusive suit against the fifth respondent as if he had executed a mortgage deed in their favour and obtained a collusive Lok Adalat award for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. Subsequently, the respondents 3 and 4 filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.852 of 2014, on the file of II Additional District Court, Trichy,

¶40

_________ Page 3 of 8

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.15931 of 2025

¶43

for passing of final decree and the same was also allowed. It is the case of the petitioner that the fifth respondent sold the property in the year 1959 itself and he had absolutely no right to execute any mortgage deed in respect of the subject property in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and the documents produce by them before the Court were forged documents and the decree obtained by them was a collusive one.

¶44

4.In these circumstance, the petitioner submitted a representation before the District Legal Services Authority with a copy marked to various other authorities including the second respondent herein seeking action against the respondents 3 to 5 for their alleged illegal activity of obtaining a collusive decree. The said representation was submitted by the petitioner on 06.05.2025. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the entries in the revenue records pertaining to above mentioned properties by considering his representation dated 06.05.2025.

¶45

5.Even according to the case of the petitioner, the respondents 3 and 4 obtained a collusive Lok Adalat award for recovery of money

¶46

_________ Page 4 of 8

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD) No.15931 of 2025

¶49

based on the mortgage deed before the Lok Adalat and subsequently, obtained a final decree before the Civil Court. If the petitioner thinks that the Lok Adalat award and subsequent final decree obtained by the respondents 3 and 4 would affect his right in any way, it is for him to challenge the Lok Adalat award and subsequent final decree in the manner known to law. Instead of challenging the same in the manner known to law, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Trichirappali, seeking action against the private respondents. In fact, the representation of the petitioner dated 06.05.2025 was not submitted before the first respondent and the copy of the same was only marked to the second respondent. When the Lok Adalat award and the subsequent decree passed by the Civil Court are intact, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot ignore the same and take any action against the private respondents. Further, in the representation of the petitioner there is no mention about the entries in the revenue records pursuant to the decree obtained by the respondents 3 and 4. In these circumstance, the prayer sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted unless the Lok Adalat award and subsequent final decree passed by the Civil Court are challenged in the manner known to law.

¶50

_________ Page 5 of 8

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.15931 of 2025

¶53

In the writ petition, though the petitioner stated that he challenged the decree passed by the Civil Court in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.852 of 2014, in the prayer, the petitioner seeks only a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to remove the entries in the revenue records pertaining to Survey No. 310/5. If the petitioner wants to challenge the Lok Adalat award passed in O.S.No.362 of 2021 or the final decree passed in I.A.No.4 of 2022, he has to obtain leave of the Court and challenge it in the manner known to law. The Lok Adalat award can be challenged only by invoking supervisory power of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The subsequent final decree passed by the Civil Court can be challenged only in the manner known law under the Code of Civil Procedure by filing an appeal. Without challenging the same in the manner known to law, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this writ petition. In any event, the prayer in the writ petition seeking removal of entry in the revenue records cannot by considered in the absence of details of entries in the revenue records, which are sought to be deleted, in the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 06.05.2025.

¶54

_________ Page 6 of 8

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD) No.15931 of 2025

¶57