Madras High Court
R.Karthikeyan vs The Sub Collector on 29 August, 2023
W.P(MD)No.6028 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.6028 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015
1.R.Karthikeyan
2.N.Pandurangan
3.N.Rajendran
4.R.Jeyamani
5.P.Maragathammal ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Sub Collector,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Tahsildar,
(Natham Settlement),
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
W.P(MD)No.6028 of 2015
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned proceedings made in
Mu.Mu(A4)/5314/2014 dated 12.12.2014 issued by the 1st respondent and
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue patta in favour
of the petitioners with respect to the property comprised in T.S.No.222 situated
at Ward No.G Block no.15 Paramakudi Town, Ramanathapuram District.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.R.Printhviraj
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. One Sankara Iyer and others sold the petition mentioned property in
favour of Lakshmiammal, Jeyamani and Maragathammal vide sale deed dated
05.12.1975. One Naganathan filed O.S.No.59 of 1976 on the file of the Sub
Court, Sivagangai for declaration that the sale deed is a null and void. The suit
was partly allowed and the sale consideration was ordered to be deposited.
Aggrieved by the same, A.S.No.772 of 1997 was filed before the High Court.
The appeal was dismissed on 25.06.1984. The validity of the sale thus became
final. The revenue record reflected the name of Sankara Iyer. The petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6028 of 2015
on the strength of the said Judgment moved the Sub Collector, Paramakudi
seeking mutation of patta in their names. The Sub Collector, Paramakudi by the
impugned proceedings dated 12.12.2014 called upon the petitioners to file the
execution petition. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition came
to be filed.
3. Since it is not in dispute that the revenue record reflected the name of
one of the vendors in the sale deed dated 05.12.1975, the petitioners are entitled
to step into his shoes. There is no rival claim in this case. The question of the
petitioners filing any execution petition does not arise at all. The suit was for
declaration and the appeal also eventually came to be dismissed. The
petitioners figured as defendants in the suit. Lakshmiammal, Jayamani,
Maragathammal figured as defendants in the suit. The question of they filing
the execution petition does not arise at all. The Sub Collector has completely
misdirected himself both in law as well as on facts. The impugned order is set
aside. The respondents are directed to enter the names of the petitioners in the
relevant revenue record. This shall be done immediately and without any delay.
4. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6028 of 2015
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
To
1.The Sub Collector,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Tahsildar,
(Natham Settlement),
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
W.P(MD)No.6028 of 2015
29.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
