Madras High Court
Sandy Marie Chantalle vs P.Karthiga on 7 July, 2021
W.A.No.221 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.221 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.960 of 2021
Sandy Marie Chantalle .. Appellant
Vs
1.P.Karthiga
2.The Union of India
Rep. by The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
3.The District Collector-cum-Appellate Authority,
under the Puducherry Settlement Act, 1970,
Puducherry.
4.The Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate,
Oulgaret Taluk,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Oulgaret, Puducherry. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 25.03.2019 made in W.P.No.32773 of 2018.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.221 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.K.N.Nataraaj
For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Vijayaraghavan for R1
Mr.J.Kumaran, AGP(Pondy)
for R2 to R4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal lies in a very narrow compass. The appellant herein
filed an application before the fourth respondent with respect to joint
patta based upon the title deed transferred in her name. The fourth
respondent passed an order on 07.08.2017 after hearing the appellant
and the first respondent, inter alia, holding that the issue of title
cannot be gone into and the issue qua patta in favour of one
Mrs.Vasanthi can be agitated by way of an appeal before the Appellate
Authority, namely, the Collector, who has been arrayed as third
respondent in this appeal.
2. Accordingly, the appellant filed an appeal in A.No.6/2017
under the statute. Upon receiving the said appeal, the third
respondent, by notice dated 03.10.2018, called upon the first
respondent to appear for enquiry. It is this notice which has been put
to challenge before the learned Single Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.221 of 2021
3.The learned Single Judge placing reliance upon the order of the
Tahsildar, namely, the fourth respondent, allowed the writ petition,
giving liberty to the parties to approach the jurisdictional civil Court.
Incidentally, it was held that based upon the same, the request for
change of patta can be made.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that it
is the order passed by the fourth respondent which is under appeal.
Even the fourth respondent has stated that the issue of patta can be
raised before the Appellate Authority.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted
that the appeal is not maintainable and in any case, the title cannot be
gone into by a revenue authority.
6. Though we are tempted to go into the maintainability of
appeal, we do not wish to do so. The said plea can be raised before the
second respondent. The learned Single Judge, in our considered view,
has not appreciated the fact that the very order of Tahsildar is under
appeal and, therefore, any reliance on the same ought to have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.221 of 2021
avoided. The appeal filed by the appellant has been taken on file and
notice has been issued calling the first respondent to appear for
enquiry.
7. Such a notice ought not to have been interfered with by the
learned Single Judge by exercising the power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by placing reliance upon the findings rendered by
the fourth respondent. Furthermore, the fourth respondent himself has
stated that on the question of issuance of patta to one Mrs. Vasanthi,
the appeal can be filed.
8. In such view of the matter, we are not in a position to approve
the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. It is for the second
respondent to consider all the issues both on fact and law. Depending
upon the decision to be made, the parties can take a decision.
9. Accordingly, the order under challenge stands set aside and
the second respondent is directed to conclude the proceedings within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. Parties are at liberty to raise all the issues both on fact and
law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.221 of 2021
10. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
07.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
W.A.No.221 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA, J.
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This matter is listed today under the caption 'for being
mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
direction will have to be given to the third respondent instead of
second respondent and therefore, the words "second respondent" in
paragraph Nos.6, 8 and 9 will have to be substituted with the words
"third respondent".
3.Considering the submission made, the words "second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.221 of 2021
respondent" in paragraph Nos.6, 8 and 9 are substituted with the
words "third respondent".
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
22.07.2021
mmi/ssm
Note: Registry is directed to issue corrected order copy
To
1.The Chief Secretary to Government,
The Union of India,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
2.The District Collector-cum-Appellate Authority,
under the Puducherry Settlement Act, 1970,
Puducherry.
3.The Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate,
Oulgaret Taluk,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Oulgaret, Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.221 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.221 of 2021
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
