Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 11186 Mad
Judgement Date : 24 August, 2023
W.P(MD)No.9451 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.9451 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
K.Jawahar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai District,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call the records in connection
with the 2nd respondent s impugned order in Na.Ka. No. 8558/2015/G2 dated
13.03.2015 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, within the time limit
that may be stipulated by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
W.P(MD)No.9451 of 2015
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.S.RA.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
None appeared for the petitioner. The case is posted under the caption
'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation.
2. I went through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition. The petitioner's mother executed a deed of settlement in his favour in
the year 1996. Patta was mutated in his favour. Thereafter, in the year 2012, it
was unilaterally cancelled. That led to issuance of the joint patta. Questioning
the proceedings dated 21.07.2014 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai, the petitioner filed revision before the District Revenue Officer,
Madurai. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai declined to interfere on
account of pendency of the civil suit between the parties. Challenging the
same, this writ petition came to be filed.
3. Since unilateral cancellation has been held to be bad in law, the case
deserves to be allowed. However, two factors come in the way.
The first is institution of O.S.No.348 of 2014 on the file of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9451 of 2015
District Munsif Court, Melur in which the deed of cancellation had
been mutated. The petitioner had not questioned the unilateral
cancellation in this writ petition.
Secondly, neither his mother nor his sibling had been impleaded
as parties.
If I allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order, that would mean
that the names of the other pattadhars will have to be deleted. That cannot be
done behind their back. Since the petitioner failed to implead his siblings and
his mother and he has also not challenged the unilateral cancellation, he has to
necessarily work out his right in O.S.No.348 of 2014 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Melur. It is not known if the said suit is pending or disposed of.
Be that as it may, the petitioner's right will abide by the outcome of the civil
suit. Based on the judgment in the civil suit, the revenue authorities will
mutate the revenue record accordingly.
4. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9451 of 2015
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
W.P(MD)No.9451 of 2015
24.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!