D.Selvakumar … vs District Revenue Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 11275 Mad

                                                                               W.P. No. 4549 of 2018

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 28.06.2022

                                                    CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                            W.P. No. 4549 of 2018
                                         and W.M.P. No. 5601 of 2018

                D.Selvakumar                                                   …       Petitioner

                                                      -vs-

                1. District Revenue Officer
                   Kanchipuram Collectorate
                   Kanchipuram District.

                2. The Revenue Divisional Officer
                   Tambaram
                   Kanchipuram District.

                3. The Thasildar
                   Shozhinganallur Taluk
                   Kanchipuram District.

                4. Manoharan
                5. Porchelvi
                6. Niraichelvi                                           ...       Respondents

                Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining the
                impugned order issued by the First Respondent through his proceedings in
                Na.Ka. No. 818/2013/No.3 dated 21.12.2017 as illegal and quash the same and
                confirm the Patta issued by the Third Respondent bearing Patta No. 5166
                regarding the property bearing Survey No. 68/1A, an extent of 1/6th share of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/7
                                                                                       W.P. No. 4549 of 2018

                total extent of 1.41.5 Hectares in Neelankarai Village, Shozhinganallur Taluk,
                Kancheepuram District.


                                    For Petitioner           :      Ms. K.Varsha
                                                                    For Mr. G.Ranganathan

                                    For Respondents          :      Mr. G.Krishnaraja (For R1 to R3)
                                                                    Additional Government Pleader

                                                                    M/s. S.Thirusaravanan (For R4)

                                                                    Mr. Y.Jyothish Chander (For R5)

                                                                    Mr. B.Damodaran (For R6)


                                                          ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order

issued by the First Respondent through his proceedings in Na.Ka. No.

818/2013/No.3 dated 21.12.2017 and confirm the Patta issued by the Third

Respondent bearing Patta No. 5166 regarding the property bearing Survey No.

68/1A, an extent of 1/6th share of the total extent of 1.41.5 Hectares in

Neelankarai Village, Shozhinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that one Ramachandiran is the original

owner of the property measuring to an extent of 1/6th share in total extent of

1.41.5 Hectares comprised in Survey No.68/1A Neelankarai Village,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No. 4549 of 2018

Kancheepuram District and the said Ramachandran had two wives. The

respondents 5 & 6 are the daughters of the first wife viz., Ranganayagi. The

said Ranganayagi passed away in the year 1956. Thereafter, the said

Ramachandran married one Saroja, who is the mother of the petitioner and the

4th respondent. During the lifetime, the said Ramachandran had executed a

registered Will in the year 1974 in favour of his daughters. After demise of the

said Ramachandran, there was a dispute with regard to the share of the subject

property between the legal heirs. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and the 4th

respondent's names were included as joint pattadarar in the revenue records in

the subject property. Objecting the same, the respondents 5 & 6 made a

representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to delete the name

of the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The RDO has also removed the name in

the revenue records. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before

the District Revenue Officer (DRO) and the DRO rejected claim made by the

petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the RDO. Challenging the same,

the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate remedy.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 5th

respondent has already filed a suit in O.S.No.3169/1997 on the file of the

Principal District Munsif, Alandur for injunction against the 4th respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No. 4549 of 2018

herein and the same was dismissed in the year 2010. As against the said decree,

an appeal was preferred by the 5th respondent in AS.No.54 of 2011, which was

re-numbered as A.S.No.262/2021 on the file of the Additional District Munsif,

Alandur. In the meanwhile, the 6th respondent has also filed a suit in

O.S.No.400/2006 and the same was decreed in her favour. As against the said

decree, the 4th respondent preferred the appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2021 Sub court,

Alandur and both the appeals are pending. Therefore, this Court may grant

liberty that after disposal of the appeals, the respective succeeding parties to

file appropriate petition for issuance of fresh patta within the stipulated time as

fixed by this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the 6th

respondent has filed a suit against the 4th respondent and the same was allowed.

Against the decree, the 4th respondent filed appeal and the same is pending.

However, the orders passed by the respondents 1 & 2 is perfectly valid, which

cannot be interfered by this Court.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader have no serious

objection for the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No. 4549 of 2018

6. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the

learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials

available on record.

7. The facts of the case are not in dispute. There is a dispute with

regard to the aforesaid property between the petitioners and the private

respondents. When there is appeal pending between the parties with regard to

the subject property, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned orders.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited

relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court, without interfering with the

impugned order, directs the learned Judge to decide the appeals on merits and

in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. After disposal of the

appeals, the succeeding party shall make a fresh application/petition to the

concerned respondents along with the judgment passed by the lower appellate

Court. After receipt of such application, the respondents shall consider the

same and pass appropriate orders, after affording opportunity to the necessary

parties, on merits and in accordance with law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No. 4549 of 2018

9. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

costs. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the

manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

28.06.2022 Rli

Index: Yes/No

To

1. District Revenue Officer Kanchipuram Collectorate Kanchipuram District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Tambaram Kanchipuram District.

3. The Thasildar Shozhinganallur Taluk Kanchipuram District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No. 4549 of 2018

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

Rli

W.P. No. 4549 of 2018

28.06.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis