Madras High Court
The Tahsildar vs C.K.Ramasamy on 1 August, 2023
W.A.No.534 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. B.BALAJI
W.A.No.534 of 2018 and
CMP No.5093 of 2018
1. The Tahsildar, Hosur, Krishnagir.
2. The District Collector, Krishnagiri 635 001. ... Appellants
Vs.
C.K.Ramasamy ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1701/2012 dated 08.03.2012.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Adv.General
Assisted by Mr.Edwin Prabakar,
Special Government Pleader and
Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan,
Addl.Govt. Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel
for Mrs.V.Srimathi
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.534 of 2018
JUDGEMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
This Intra Court Appeal has been filed by the Government as against
the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1701/2012 dated 08.03.2012,
wherein, the first appellant herein was directed as " to consider the case of
the writ petitioner and arrange to issue patta in respect of the property in
Survey No.235/3 in Chichuraganapalli Village, Krishnagiri District, in the
light of the decree and order dated 24.02.2011 of the Assistant Settlement
Officer, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy
of the order".
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of writ appeal is as follows.
The respondent/writ petitioner herein has filed the above said writ
petition seeking to issue patta to him, in respect of the property situate at
S.No.235/3, Chichuraganapalli Village, Krishnagiri District. According to
the respondent/writ petitioner, the above said property was allotted to his
father Krishnamachi through a partition deed dated 22.07.1952 and it was
assessed to tax and after his father's life time, he succeeded the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.534 of 2018
2.1. At the time of settlement in the year 1971, notice was served to
the father of the respondent/writ petitioner for granting Ryotwari Patta of the
land and he had appeared for enquiry. However, the settlement Tahsildar,
vide order dated 04.04.1971, had refused to grant patta, stating that the land
in question belonged to Inamdar as his private. Therefore, to cancel the
above order dated 04.04.1971 and also to issue Ryotwari patta in his name,
the respondent/ writ petitioner had filed O.S.No.24/2009 before the Principal
District Judge, Krishnagiri and the same was decreed in his favour, vide
decree and judgment dated 09.06.2010. Pursuant to the decree, the
respondent/ writ petitioner had approached the authorities concerned to
issue patta. Since there was no response from the official concerned, the
respondent/writ petitioner had filed the above writ petition and it was
allowed. Challenging the same, this writ appeal is before this court.
3. There are several grounds raised in the appeal that the land in
question was considered as a private land of inamdar; the writ petitioner
has not proved by documents that the land owner cultivated as private land;
as against the order of the settlement Tahsildar, Salem, the remedy is only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.534 of 2018
before the Tribunal, within three months under Section 12(2) of the Tamil
Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963;
only after effecting the sale of the property by the Government in the year
2008, the petitioner had filed the suit in O.S.No.24/2009; after expiry of 39
years, the decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri in
favour of the respondent suffered on jurisdictional as well as limitation
ground; etc.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the order
of the Writ Court is a positive order and hence, this writ appeal has been
filed. He further submitted that, at the time of filing the suit in
O.S.No.24/2009, the land in survey No.235/3 measuring to an extent of 5.10
acres was already sold one Ravindra Muni Reddy and Radamma, vide
document No.2528/2008 dated 22.02.2008 and hence, legally, patta cannot
be granted in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.534 of 2018
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ
petitioner submitted that the order of the Writ Court is not a positive order
and it is only a direction to the concerned Tahsildar, in the light of the order
passed by the Civil Court as well as the Assistant Settlement Officer.
Therefore, there is no cause for filing the present appeal and hence, the order
passed by the learned single Judge does not warrant any interference by this
Court.
6. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner that
pending writ appeal, patta was granted in favour of the respondent/writ
petitioner.
7. Therefore, if the appellants are aggrieved by the order of patta
granted in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner, liberty is granted to the
appellants to proceed further, if the law permits them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.534 of 2018
8. With the above direction, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(D.K.K.J.) (P.B.B.J.)
01.08.2023
Internet: Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
mst
To
1. The Tahsildar, Hosur, Krishnagir.
2. The District Collector, Krishnagiri 635 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.534 of 2018
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
P. B.BALAJI, J.
mst
W.A.No.534 of 2018
01.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
