T.Subramanian vs The District Revenue Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 15942 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 15942 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2023

Madras High Court

T.Subramanian vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 December, 2023

Author: S.Vaidyanathan

Bench: S.Vaidyanathan

                                                         1/6                    W.A.No.3424/2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED :: 08-12-2023

                                                        CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

                                                         AND

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

                                              W.A.No.3424 of 2023

            T.Subramanian                         ...               Appellant

                                                  -vs-

            1.The District Revenue Officer,
              Perambalur District,
              Perambalur.

            2.The Sub Collector,
              Perambalur,
              Perambalur.

            3.The Tahsildar,
              Kunnam Taluk,
              Perambalur District.

            4.The Assistant Engineer (O&M),
              Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation
              (TANGEDCO), Ariyalur West,
              Ariyalur District.

            Sengamalai (Died)
            5.Muruvayee
            6.Selvarasu
            7.Rani

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                2/6                              W.A.No.3424/2023


            8.Ramar
            9.Krishnamurthy                          ...                Respondents



                                  Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated
            28.07.2022, passed in W.P.No.15998 of 2017.


                                        For Appellant : Mrs.M.Janani

                                        For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.A.Selvendran,
                                                                 Spl.Govt.Pleader.

                                        For Respondents 5 to 9 : No appearance


                                                          JUDGMENT

(By S.Vaidyanathan,J.)

This appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned single Judge,

dated 28.07.2022, passed in W.P.No.15998 of 2017.

2. Writ Petition was filed by the writ petitioner, appellant herein,

challenging the order of first respondent Authority, namely, District Revenue Officer,

Perambalur, dated 23.10.2015, confirming the order of second respondent Authority,

namely, Sub-Collector, Perambalur, dated 18.09.2014.

3. Before the learned single Judge, counsel for the appellant and the

contesting respondent submitted that there was a dispute with regard to the property in

question and joint patta may be maintained till they get appropriate redressal before the

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

Civil Court, seeking title. The learned single Judge recorded the submission in

Paragraph 3 and the relevant finding in Paragraph 4, which are extracted below :

''3. The respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 5th respondent submitted that this Court may issue direction to the official respondents to maintain joint patta issued in favour of the petitioner and the private respondent and liberty may be given to the parties to approach the Civil Court for declaration of title in respect of survey number in question.

4. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the private respondent, this Court is inclined to issue direction to the official respondents to maintain joint patta in the name of the petitioner and the private respondent and further grants liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate Suit before the competent Civil Court by impleading the private respondent as party in the said Suit and the succeeding party is granted liberty to file fresh application before the revenue official for issuance of patta.'' From the above, it is clear that it was a consensual order and the parties' rights are not

affected by the said order, as they have been given liberty to work out their remedy

before the competent Civil Court.

4. When there was a consent, questioning the same by means of an appeal

through another lawyer is not justified. That apart, if the appellant has got any

grievance, more-so in the light of the grounds raised by the appellant in the

Memorandum of Appeal, which are extracted below, in all fairness, he should have

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

approached the learned single Judge by way of a review. It does not mean that the

appellant is given liberty to file a review before the learned single Judge. The grounds

read as under :

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

5. Since we find that the order of the learned single Judge is perfectly

justified, we are not inclined to grant any relief in this Writ Appeal, which is,

accordingly, dismissed. No costs.




            Index : Yes/No                                                   (S.V.N.,J.)      (K.R.S.,J.)
            Internet : Yes/No                                                        08-12-2023
            dixit
                                                                           (2/2)




            To

            1.The District Revenue Officer,
              Perambalur District,
              Perambalur.

            2.The Sub Collector,
              Perambalur,
              Perambalur.

            3.The Tahsildar,
              Kunnam Taluk,
              Perambalur District.

            4.The Assistant Engineer (O&M),

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), Ariyalur West, Ariyalur District.

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

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

AND K.RAJASEKAR,J.

dixit

(2/2)

08-12-2023

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