Madras High Court
P.S.Lakshmi vs The District Revenue Officer on 3 February, 2021
W.P.No.23294 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.No.23294 of 2011
P.S.Lakshmi,
W/o.Dhavaselvam ... petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thirukoilur, Villupuram District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Tirukoilur Taluk,
Villupuram District.
4.Ellammal
W/o.Lakshminarayanan ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records on the file of the first respondent relating to the order issued in
Na.Ka.No.A3/12464/2010 dated 16.08.2011 and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.P.No.23294 of 2011
For Petitioner : G.S.Sankaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Madumathi
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
Mrs.Jayanthi Venkatesh for R4
ORDER
The writ petition is filed for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent
relating to the order issued in Na.Ka.No.A3/12464/2010 dated
16.08.2011 and quash the same.
2.The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as
follows:-
The petitioner claims tittle in respect of the lands in S.No.552/1,
Chittalingamadam Village, S.No.1003, 109/1 Kunnathur Village and
S.No.107/3, T.Kodiyur Village as legal heir of her husband who
according to the petitioner inherited the same from his father. The
petitioner and the contesting fourth respondent are close relatives. The
petitioner admits that there was a partition deed executed on 05.10.1963
in Doc.No.2398 of 1963 among the son and daughter of one Thiru
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23294 of 2011
Arunachalam. The petitioner states that her father-in-law Thiru
Srinivasan is one of the son of Thiru. Arunachalam and the fourth
respondent is the daughter of Thiru.Arunachalam. However, it is
contented by this petitioner that the said partition deed was not acted
upon. It is the case of petitioner that the properties were divided
subsequently by way of in oral partition whereby some of the properties
alloted to her father-in-law was given to fourth respondent and the
properties which are the subject matter of this litigation was taken by
petitioner's father-in-law. It is the further case of petitioner that patta for
the properties was given to petitioner's husband. It is noted that some of
the properties were settled inform of the petitioner by her husband.
Contrary to the terms of registered partition deed of the year 1963, the
petitioner claims tittle on the basis of a subsequent oral partition.
3.Stating that during UDR, patta stood in the name of fourth
respondent has been changed in favour of petitioner's father-in-law, the
fourth respondent has filed a petition before the first respondent for
correction of UDR entries. The said petition was entertained and the first
respondent passed the impugned order holding that the properties were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23294 of 2011
alloted to the fourth respondent in the registered partition in 1963 and
that patta has been wrongly given in the name of petitioner's-father-in-
law and thereafter in the name of petitioner's husband excluding the
name of fourth respondent. The correction of entries during UDR by
the first respondent was on the basis of registered partition deed. The
petitioner's claim based on a subsequent oral partition cannot be
entertained as the oral partition is not admitted. The first respondent has
passed the impugned order after hearing all the parties concerned.
Though the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vishwas Foot wear
Company Limited Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram and others
reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94, the said judgement has no application to
the facts of this. The first respondent is competent to correct any error
during UDR. The petitioner has produced before this Court only the A
register prepared after UDR. No revenue record before UDR is
produced. The petitioner's version contrary to the registered partition
deed can be considered only by the Civil Court. The impugned order of
first respondent cannot be assailed on the basis of oral arrangement
contrary to the registered instruments.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23294 of 2011
4.Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is
dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to appraoch the Civil Court and to
establish his right and title. No Costs.
03.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
tta
Copy to
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thirukoilur, Villupuram District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Tirukoilur Taluk,
Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23294 of 2011
S.S.SUNDAR.,J
tta
W.P.No.23294 of 2011
03.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
