Madras High Court
K.Muruganandam vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 5 September, 2022
W.P.No.25688 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.25688 of 2016 &
W.M.P.Nos.27044, 22007, 23886 and 22008 of 2016
1. K.Muruganandam
2. K.Raja ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
represented its Commissioner,
Department of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005
2. The District Collector,
Perambalur District
3. The District Revenue Officer,
District Collectorate,
Perambalur District
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer
District Collectorate, Perambalur,
5. The Sub-Registrar,
Veppanthattai,
Perambalur District
6. C.Meenakshi
Holding office as
District Revenue Officer,
Perambalur District ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25688 of 2016
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings of the 2nd
respondent dated 20.06.2016 bearing Na.Ka.C1 7046/2016 and to quash
the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mr.A.Anandan
Government Advocate for R1 to R5
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition for issuance of
a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings of the 2nd
respondent dated 20.06.2016 bearing Na.Ka.C1 7046/2016 and to quash
the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. The case of the petitioners is that originally the property was
owned by one Singaram Pandaram and the said Singaram Pandaram
executed the settlement deed in favour of the petitioners on 02.11.1981,
based on which, the revenue records were mutated in favour of the
petitioners and subsequently, the private respondent, who claims to be the
e legal heir of Singaram Pandaram, made an application before the 3rd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25688 of 2016
respondent, viz., the District Revenue Officer, Perambalur to cancel the
patta in favour of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.385 Revenue
(General – 3) Dept., dated 17.08.2004, pursuant to which, the 3rd
respondent, cancelled the patta and mutated the patta in favour of the
private respondent, challenging the same, present Writ Petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue
involved between petitioners and the private respondent is the disputed
question of fact, which cannot be decided by the Revenue officials. In the
impugned order, the revenue officials decided the title and the same is
contrary to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in
2014 – 4 Law Weekly 145. Accordingly, prayed to allow the present writ
petition.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 to 5 submits that the revenue records were mutated in
favour of the petitioners based on the settlement deed dated 02.11.1981,
however, the Private respondent made an application before the 3rd
respondent, stating that there was an error in UDR and sought to rectify the
error, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.385 Revenue (General – 3) Dept., dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25688 of 2016
17.08.2004. Further, the initial settlement deed executed by the private
respondent's father in favour of the petitioners on 02.11.1981 was
subsequently cancelled on 18.06.1999, based on which, the revenue
records were mutated in favour of the private respondent, therefore,
contended to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the
documents placed on record.
6. Admittedly, the issue involved in the present Writ petition is the
disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided by this Court as well as
by the revenue officials, however, the revenue officials, mutated the
revenue records based on the settlement deed cancelled by the settlor as
against the petitioners and the same has to be decided only by the
competent civil court and not under Article 226 Constitution of India.
7. It is to be noted that the revenue records were mutated in favour of
the petitioners based on the settlement deed executed by Singaram
Pandaram on 02.11.1981, whereas, the private respondent claims that she
is the sole legal heir of Singaram Pandaram and that no other legal heirs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25688 of 2016
are available to Singaram Pandaram. Further, the private respondent also
claims that original settlement deed executed by her father in favour of the
petitioners on 02.11.1981 were subsequently cancelled by the private
respondent's father on 18.06.1999. After cancellation of the settlement
deed, private respondent, made an application before the 3rd respondent
and in exercise of power conferred on him under G.O.Ms.No.385 Revenue
(General – 3) Dept., dated 17.08.2004, the 3rd respondent, mutated the
revenue records in favour of the private respondent, however, rendering
any opinion on the merits of the case would adversely affect the interest of
the petitioners as well as the private respondent, this Court defers to render
any opinion on the merits of the case and this Court is of the view that the
issue involved in this Writ petition can only be decided by the competent
civil court.
8. In view of the above, the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition
cannot be granted and without interfering with the impugned order, this
Court grants liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent civil court
for appropriate remedy and if the petitioners succeed in the civil court,
liberty is hereby granted to the petitioners to file a fresh application before
the Revenue officials for mutation of revenue records. Furthermore, the
period during which the Writ Petition was presented before this Court ie.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25688 of 2016
on 11.07.2016, till the date of receipt of certified copy of the order should
be excluded while computing limitation. In the event of filing of the petition
by the petitioners, the civil court shall decide the issue between the
petitioners and the private respondent by passing appropriate orders
without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court and
by deciding the title independently after affording opportunity to all the
parties concerned.
In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
05.09.2022
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
ssd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25688 of 2016
To
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
represented its Commissioner,
Department of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005
2. The District Collector,
Perambalur District
3. The District Revenue Officer,
District Collectorate,
Perambalur District
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer
District Collectorate, Perambalur,
5. The Sub-Registrar,
Veppanthattai,
Perambalur District
6. C.Meenakshi
Holding office as
District Revenue Officer,
Perambalur District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25688 of 2016
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
ssd
W.P.No.25688 of 2016 &
W.M.P.Nos.27044, 22007, 23886 and 22008 of 2016
05.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
