Petitioner challenged cancellation of his subdivision and patta by the Sub-Collector. With a declaration suit (O.S.No.161 of 2013) filed by the petitioner himself pending and civil revision petitions against the executing court's order also pending, the court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 10.03.2025
Delivered on : 17 . 03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022 and
W.M.P.(MD)No.12739 of 2022
Ajith Selvins.S.B ... Petitioner
/Vs./
O/o the District Revenue Officer,
Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
Thackkalay, Thackkalay,
Kanyakumari District.
Vilavancode Taluk Office, Vilavancode,
Kanyakumari District.
1/12
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
NHC Building, Ganesh Nagar, Janapancatram, Chennai 600 007. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Moo.Mu. Aa3/5234/2021 dated 09.04.2022 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravana Kumar
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jeyapriya Government Advocate for R1-4
: Mrs.V.Janaki Devi for R5
ORDER
The writ petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent in Moo.Mu.Aa3/5234/2021 dated 09.04.2022.
survey No.430/3A1A of Pacode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, measuring 29.500 cents belongs to the petitioner's family and the said lands comprised in re-survey No.430/3A1A correlated to old survey No.2705, being portion of a larger extent of
2/12
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
38.950 cents, was subject matter of final decree made in O.S.No.416 of 1974 dated 22.08.1978. The said O.S.No.416 of 1974 was filed for partition and 38.950 cents stood allotted to Neelu @ Annammal and the said Neelu @ Annammal took possession and also mutated revenue records in her name. Subsequently, on 04.03.2004, the said Neelu @ Annammal executed two settlement deeds in favour of her son, viz., Selvadhas and her daughter, viz., Mary Pushpa Bai. The writ petitioner is the son of said Selvadhas. Under the said settlement deed, the son was given 28.95 cents and daughter Mary Pushpa Bai was given 10 cents. The son Selvadhas pursuant to the settlement deed dated 04.03.2004, effected mutation of the revenue records in his name and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property of 28.95 cents that was settled on him. However, subsequent to the death of the said Selvadhas, his legal heirs have entered into a registered partition deed on 05.08.2020, dividing the 28.95 cents and in terms of said partition deed, mutation of the revenue records was also effected pertaining to the respective portions allotted to the legal heirs and the legal heirs also took possession. While being so, one Rajayyan Robin @ Thangappan, who is the father of the fifth respondent, filed an execution petition in E.P.No.10
3/12
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
of 2016, against the petitioners, on the basis of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.484 of 1961 and claimed delivery of possession of 22.514 cents from and out of the said 38.95 cents. In fact, even according to the petitioner, the said 22.514 cents was ear marked as the 38th plot in the final decree proceedings in O.S.No.484 of 1961. The petitioner filed a claim petition in the said execution petition with respect to 11.690 cents and 10.824 cents, in E.A.No.132 of 2018 in E.P.No.10 of 2016 on the ground that in O.S.No.416 of 1974, there was a specific finding that the decree in the said suit in O.S.No.484 of 1961 would not bind the plaintiffs. The said claim petition was allowed and the execution petition was dismissed. Despite the said Rajayyan Robin @ Thangappan,being unsuccessful in the litigation, after a lapse of 18 years, the fifth respondent approached the Registration Department and sought for cancellation of the document No.382/2004 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.13128 of 2022 and this Court has admitted the writ petition and granted interim order in favour of the petitioner on 24.06.2022. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent has cancelled the subdivision in favour of the petitioner citing pendency of civil cases.
4/12
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
proceeded to subdivide the property and to issue patta only based on the order passed in E.A.No.132 of 2018 in E.P.No.10 of 2016. The Execution Petition was filed by none else than the father of the fifth respondent and therefore, the fifth respondent cannot have any better right than his father. The impugned order is therefore called in question in the writ petition.
5/12
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
Standing Order 31, would contend that the Rule contemplates only three classes of transfer:
(ii) transfer by virtue of decree of Court or revenue sale
(iii) by succession, either testamentary or intestate succession.
6/12
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
7/12
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
of 2013, which is pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Kulithalai and therefore, in such circumstances, the application for subdivision was not maintainable and rightly the same was dismissed by the second respondent in and by the impugned order.
8/12
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
the parties. Further, I find from the plaint in O.S.No.161 of 2013 before the District Munsif, Kulithalai, that the petitioner along with other legal heirs, he being the fourth plaintiff has himself filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, numbering as many as 176, from executing the decree in O.S.No.484 of 1961, the base suit for partition and also seeking further relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. When a civil suit of this nature is pending, at the instance of the petitioner himself and also in view of the fact that the fifth respondent along with the other legal heirs have already challenged the order of the Executing Court by way of civil revision petitions and the same is also pending, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the second respondent.
9/12
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
Therefore, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent, cancelling the subdivision that had been given effect to, pending not only revisions before this Court, but also a substantial suit for declaration of title and injunction in O.S.No. 161 of 2013 that too and at the instance of the writ petitioner and other legal heirs, I do not find the ratio laid down in Viswas, case, coming to the rescue of the writ petitioner for the simple reason that the Tahsildar ought to have directed the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court, instead of proceeding to order subdivision at the bequest of the petitioner, that too without notice to the fifth respondent and other legal heirs of Rajayyan Robin @ Thangappan. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the second respondent.
Index : Yes / No 17.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No LS
10/12
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
TO:-
11/12
W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
P.B. BALAJI, J.
LS
Pre-delivery Order made in W.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2022
Dated: 17.03.2025
2 issues framed by the court
Was the Sub-Collector's order cancelling the petitioner's subdivision and patta sustainable given pending civil suits and revision petitions over title?
Did the Tahsildar act lawfully in ordering subdivision without notice to the fifth respondent and other legal heirs?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd V. The District CollectorDistinguished¶12
2011-2CWC-242
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajith Selvins.S.B
The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District
The Sub-Collector, Padmanabhapuram at Thackkalay
The Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk
The District Registrar, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District
Amudhini Jayaprakash
P.B. Balaji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
