Madras High Court
Selva Dhanasekaran vs Commissioner Of Land ... on 5 October, 2021
WP.No.34293 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.10.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.No.34293 of 2007
Selva Dhanasekaran ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-5
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Ramanathapuram
3.Arumugam
4.Thadiyarasu ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records made in the
impugned order dated 31.05.2006 in P5/75375/98 CR 82/98 passed by the
second respondent herein, quash the same.
(prayer amended as per order dated 05.10.2021 in WMP.No.23307 of 2019
in WP.No.34293 of 2007)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.34293 of 2007
For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan
For Respondents
For R1 & 2: Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan,
Government Advocate
For R3 : Mr.Mohamed Ansar
For R4 : No appearance
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorari calling for
the records made in the impugned order dated 31.05.2006 in P5/75375/98
CR 82/98 passed by the second respondent herein, quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's fore-fathers are
performing Thavasiyar service in the Arulmigu Naganathar Temple at
Nainarkoil, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. The property
comprised in survey No.329/1 to an extent of 2.85 acres were assigned to
his family members as Inam. 80 cents out of total extent was mortgaged to
one, Kannuswami Thevar. The third respondent was in occupation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.34293 of 2007
land and as such the petitioner's father filed suit in OS.No.528 of 1985 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi for redemption of the said
mortgage, which was dismissed and the appeal suit in AS.No.84 of 1990
and the second appeal were also dismissed. Therefore, to an extent of 80
cents of the land comprised in survey No.329/1 occupied by the third
respondent herein. At the same time, the petitioner's elder brother filed suit
in OS.No.31 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi
for declaration and injunction in respect of the property admeasuring 2.85
acres comprised in survey No.326/2 as against one, Avadi and others and the
same was decreed and confirmed in AS.No.51 of 1996 on the file of the Sub
Court, Ramanathapuram. While being so, the third respondent attempted to
claim patta for the survey No.326/2 also along with survey No.329/1. The
third and fourth respondents have no right or title over the property
comprised in survey No.326/2. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Paramakudi by order dated 23.02.1996 granted patta for the entire property
in favour of third and fourth respondents herein. Therefore, the petitioner
filed appeal before the second respondent and the same was also dismissed
by order dated 31.05.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.34293 of 2007
revision before the first respondent and rejected on the ground of laches.
Later, the revisional power has been taken from the jurisdiction of the first
respondent and as such the petitioner filed petition for seeking amendment
to challenge the order passed by the second respondent herein.
3. On perusal of the counter, revealed that the suits mentioned in
OS.No.31 of 1989 and the appeal suit in AS.No.51 of 1996 on the file of the
Sub Court, Ramanathapuram are not related to the disputed property
comprised in survey No.326/2, Vaniyavallam of Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner did not produce any copies of the
judgment before the second respondent during the enquiry. The second
respondent confirmed the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer
on the strength of the decree passed in OS.No.528 of 1985 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Paramakudi. Therefore, the third respondent filed
counter and revealed that the father of the petitioner filed suit in OS.No.528
of 1985 claiming service tenure character of the land, which was not
accepted. Aggrieved by the same, he also preferred appeal suit in AS.No.84
of 1990 and the same was also dismissed and confirmed by this Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.34293 of 2007
SA.No.1530 of 1994. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any patta
and the second respondent rightly passed the order.
4. As stated supra, in respect of the land comprised in survey
No.329/1 was mortgaged, in which one, Kannuswami Thevar is in
possession and enjoyment of the said land. Therefore, the petitioner's father,
insofar as the land admeasuring 80 cents comprised in survey No.329/1,
filed suit in OS.No.528 of 1985 and failed upto this court in SA.No.1530 of
1994. Insofar as the land comprised in survey No.326/2 is concerned, the
petitioner's brother one, Ponamirdham filed suit in OS.No.31 of 1989 and
the same was decreed in respect of the property comprised in survey
No.326/2 to an extent of 2.85 acres and the same was confirmed in the
appeal suit in AS.No.51 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court,
Ramanathapuram. After demise of his brother, by the proceedings dated
21.11.1997, the petitioner was appointed as 'Thavasiyar Mirasu'. Therefore,
without considering those aspects, the second respondent passed the
impugned order as if the petitioner claimed patta for the property comprised
in survey No.329/1. On the other hand, the third and fourth respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.34293 of 2007
claimed patta in respect of property comprised in survey No.326/2 including
the land comprised in survey No.329/1. Therefore, the impugned order
cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and it is liable to be set aside.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.05.2006 is set aside
and the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the second
respondent for passing fresh orders. The second respondent is directed to
issue notice to the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 herein within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and after
giving them opportunity of hearing and pass orders on merits and in
accordance with law in view of the judgment and decree passed in
OS.No.31 of 1989 and appeal suit in AS.No.51 of 1996 within a period of
six weeks thereafter. No order as to costs.
05.10.2021
lok (3/3)
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.34293 of 2007
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.34293 of 2007
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-5
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Ramanathapuram
WP.No.34293 of 2007
05.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
