Madras High Court
N.Sendamaraai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 21 July, 2023
W.P.No.29675 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.29675 of 2022 &
W.M.P.No.29063 of 2022
N.Sendamaraai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Brough Road,
Erode – 638 001,
Erode District.
2.The Revenue Tahsildar,
Erode Taluk,
Erode District.
3.Shanmugam @ V.O.Lakshmi Narayanan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned notices in Na.Ka.No.4685/2022/A4 dated
26.09.2022 and 26.10.2022 passed by the first respondent, quash the same
and consequently forbear the respondents from interferring with the
petitioner right to property mentioned in Patta No.386, R.S.No.2/1A,
Suriyampalayam Village, Erode Taluk and District.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29675 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.E.Sundaram,
Government Advocate
For Respondent 3 : Mr.B.M.Subash
ORDER
The enquiry notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the
proceedings dated 26.09.2022 & 26.10.2022 under the provisions of the Patta
Passbook Act is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. No writ petition against an enquiry notice is entertainable, unless it
is tainted with the allegation of malafides or issued by an authority having no
jurisdiction.
3. In the context of the limited scope of entertainability of the writ
petition against the notice, the present case is to be considered.
4. The facts in nutshell to be considered is that the petitioner instituted
a civil suit in respect of the subject property described in the present writ
petition in O.S.No.57/1996. The suit was instituted on the file of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29675 of 2022
First Additional Sub Court, Erode for declaration of title and for permanent
injunction. The suit was dismissed against the writ petitioner on 22.07.2003
and the petitioner preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.24/2003 on the file of
the Additional District Court, Erode. The Additional District Court, Erode
reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 10.02.2004.
Accordingly, the declaration of title was granted in favour of the petitioner.
The defendant in the suit filed S.A.No.2125/2004. The High Court dismissed
the second appeal on 20.10.2014. Against the order passed in the second
appeal, the defendant in the suit filed SLP(C).No.4504/2015 and the Supreme
Court dismissed the SLP on 27.02.2015. Even after the dismissal of the SLP,
the defendant filed review application in SR27088/2015 along with
CMP.No.16915/2016. The said review petition was also rejected by this
Court on 20.02.2020.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly
contended that after securing the declaration of title, the patta granted in
favour of the petitioner on 27.12.2006 was confirmed, since the declaration
of title was granted in favour of the petitioner by the first appellate court,
High Court and the Supreme Court. The defendant died on 13.01.2022 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29675 of 2022
the third respondent thereafter disputed the title of the petitioner based on a
Will executed by the defendant in the suit on 24.06.2019. As on 2019, the
defendant herself was not holding any title, in view of the declaration issued
in favour of the writ petitioner in the appeal suit by the District Court.
6. The District Court, Erode in A.S.No.24/2003 declared the title in
favour of the writ petitioner on 10.02.2004 which was confirmed by the High
Court in Second Appeal in the year 2014 and thereafter, confirmed by the
Supreme Court. Thus, in the year 2019, the defendant in the original suit
viz., one Dhanalakshmi was not holding any valid title and therefore, the
third respondent cannot claim any title based on the Will executed by the
original defendant, Dhanalakshmi in the year 2019.
7. Be that as it may, prima facie there is no reason to issue notice to the
writ petitioner, since the title of the petitioner has already been declared by
the Competent Civil Court of law and confirmed by the High Court and the
Supreme Court. Thus, the authority who issued the impugned notice lacks
jurisdiction on account of the declaration of title granted by the competent
civil court of law in favour of the writ petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29675 of 2022
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned notices issued
by the first respondent in proceedings dated 26.09.2022 & 26.10.2022 are
quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.07.2023
nl
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29675 of 2022
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Brough Road,
Erode – 638 001,
Erode District.
2.The Revenue Tahsildar,
Erode Taluk,
Erode District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29675 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
nl
W.P.No.29675 of 2022
21.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
