Madras High Court
M.Ramanathan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 30 June, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.10777 of 2021
M.Ramanathan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court
DATED: 30.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.10777 of 2021
and WMP(MD) Nos.8400 of 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
M.Ramanathan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Karambakudi Taluk
Pudukottai District.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Karambakudi Taluk
Pudukottai District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Karambakudi
Pudukottai District.
4.M.Arangulavan
5.M.Chakkaravarthy
6.M.Srinivasan
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10777 of 2021
M.Ramanathan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
7.Milrani @ Pilrani
8.Prema
9.Sundharam
10.Sindhammal
11.Revathi ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2 nd respondent to
consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2021 for seeking
cancellation of patta in respect of S.NOs.13/1 and 374 Karambakudi Village,
Karambakudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.
For Petitioner :Ms.S.Mahalakshmi
For Respondents :Mr.M.Lingadurai for R1 to R3
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of mandamus
directing the second respondent to consider the representation made by the
petitioner on 22.02.2021, wherein the petitioner is seeking for cancellation
of patta issued in favour of the 8th respondent with respect to the subject
property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10777 of 2021
M.Ramanathan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property was originally
enjoyed by his father and the patta also stood in his name in Patta No.896.
The further case of the petitioner is that he died intestate and thereby the
petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 and his mother became the legal heirs. It is
stated that there was a partition among the family members in the presence
of panchayat members on 20.09.1998. Admittedly, this is more in the nature
of an unregistered partition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
respondents 4 to 7 sold a portion of the property in favour of third parties
and another portion was settled in favour of the 8th respondent. The
apprehension of the petitioner is that the 8th respondent is trying to sell the
portion of the property that was settled in her favour.
4. In the considered view of this Court, the partition in question is an
unregistered partition and whether it was acted upon by the parties is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10777 of 2021
M.Ramanathan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
matter for evidence. That apart even the admitted case of the petitioner is
that right from the year 2018 onwards, there have been at least three
registered documents executed and those documents have not been
questioned before any Court till date. Pursuant to the execution of these
documents, the patta has also been transferred in the name of the
respondents 5, 8 and 11. The petitioner is seeking for cancellation of these
pattas issued in favour of the respondents. There is no question of
cancelling these pattas without the petitioner questioning the validity of the
documents executed in favour of these respondents. The revenue authorities
cannot go into the dispute of title over the property and they have to
necessarily act upon the documents executed in favour of respondents 5, 8
and 11.
5. In view of the above discussion, no useful purpose will be served in
directing the second respondent to consider the representation made by the
petitioner, wherein the petitioner is seeking for cancellation of patta. The
only option that is left to the petitioner is to approach a competent civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10777 of 2021
M.Ramanathan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Court and question the validity of the documents executed in favour of the
private respondents. Only based on the ultimate judgment and decree passed
by the civil Court, the revenue authorities can act upon the same and till
then, they may not have the jurisdiction to question the registered
documents.
6. Except giving this liberty to the petitioner, no further orders can be
passed in this writ petition and this writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10777 of 2021
M.Ramanathan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Karambakudi Taluk
Pudukottai District.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Karambakudi Taluk
Pudukottai District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Karambakudi
Pudukottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10777 of 2021
M.Ramanathan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RR
W.P.(MD)No.10777 of 2021
30.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
