Madras High Court
N.Murugan vs The District Collector on 22 December, 2021
WP.No.4916 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.No.4916 of 2021
N.Murugan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur District
2.The Divisional Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District
3.The Thasildhar,
Thiruvallur Taluk,
Thiruvallur District
4.The Assistant Director,
Land Survey and Record,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District
5.M/s.Jemi Ethiraj Promoters Private Limited,
Represented by its Proprietor S.Jayaraj,
No.709, SBOA School, East Gate Street,
Anna Nagar West, Chennai 600 101
(R5 impleaded vide order dated 22.06.2021
in WMP.No.6659 of 2021 in WP.4916 of 2021) ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.4916 of 2021
Prayer :-
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records
pertaining to the proceedings vide Naka.No.07/2021(Nee A) dated
16.02.2021 on the file of the Thasildhar, Thiruvallur and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to measure the land and issue sub
divisional patta in petitioner's name and consequently direct the
respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr.Patricks
For Respondents
For R1 to 4 : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham,
Special Government Pleader
For R5 : M/s.Shaikh Mehrunissa
ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the proceedings
vide Naka.No.07/2021(Nee A) dated 16.02.2021 on the file of the
Thasildhar, Thiruvallur and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to measure the land and issue sub divisional patta in petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.4916 of 2021
name and consequently direct the respondents.
2. Heard, Mr.Patricks, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.P.Baladhandayutham, Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4, and M/s.Shaikh Mehrunissa, the learned counsel for the
fifth respondent.
3. The petitioner's wife was settled the property comprised in
survey No.440/1A to an extent of 50 cents situated at Mappadu Village,
Tiruvallur by her father by the settlement deed dated 17.02.2011 registered
vide document No.475 of 2011. Unfortunately, his wife died on 28.11.2012
leaving behind the petitioner and her children as her legal heirs. After
demise of his wife, his father in law unilaterally cancelled the settlement
deed by deed of cancellation dated 27.12.2012 registered vide document
No.4901 of 2012. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the same in the suit in
OS.No.136 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tiruvallur.
While pending the suit, his father in law executed sale deed in favour of the
fifth respondent herein in respect of the subject property. The said suit was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.4916 of 2021
decreed by the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2020. On the strength of
the decree, the petitioner applied for patta before the third respondent. It
was rejected for the reason that though the petitioner's wife was settled with
the subject property to an extent of 50 cents comprised in survey
No.440/1A, there is no demarcation and there is no boundary for the said
property, since it was settled from the total extent of 2.25 acres comprised in
survey No.440/1A situated at Mappadu Village, Tiruvallur. That apart, the
petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of the said property, since after
purchase of the property, the fifth respondent is in possession and enjoyment
of the same.
4. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that the
decree obtained by the petitioner is an exparte decree and now the fifth
respondent has filed petition to set aside the exparte decree dated
13.07.2020 and it is pending.
5. That apart, on perusal of the settlement deed, revealed that the
subject property was settled in favour of the petitioner's wife as 50 cents out
of 2.25 acres comprised in survey No.440/1A without any boundaries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.4916 of 2021
Therefore, though the petitioner succeeded in the suit, only after
demarcation of the property and after recovery of possession, he is entitled
for patta. As such, the third respondent rightly rejected the request of the
petitioner and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed
by the third respondent and the writ petition is devoid of merits.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. After demarcation
of the subject property and recovery of possession, the petitioner can very
well approach the third respondent for issuance of patta. It is also made
clear that the petitioner is at liberty to make necessary application for
demarcation of the subject property. No order as to costs.
22.12.2021
lok
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.4916 of 2021
lok
To
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur District
2.The Divisional Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District
3.The Thasildhar,
Thiruvallur Taluk,
Thiruvallur District
4.The Assistant Director,
Land Survey and Record,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District
5.M/s.Jemi Ethiraj Promoters Private Limited,
Represented by its Proprietor S.Jayaraj,
No.709, SBOA School, East Gate Street,
Anna Nagar West, Chennai 600 101
WP.No.4916 of 2021
22.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
