Madras High Court
Thiru.V.Rajamani vs The Commissioner Of Land Admnistration on 1 October, 2024
W.P.No.28817 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :01.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P No.28817 of 2024
Thiru.V.Rajamani ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Land Admnistration
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-28
2. The Collector
Thiruvannamalai
Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The District Revenue Officer
Thiruvannamalai Town,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Thiruvannamalai Town,
Thiruvannamalai District.
5. The Tahsildar
Chengam Taluk,
Chengam, Thiruvannamalai.
6. The Village Administrative Officer
Melravanthavadi village, Chengam Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
7 .Tmt.Vasugi
8.V.Balaraman ..Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28817 of 2024
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 5 to
consider the petitioner representation dated 06.03.2023 and thereby cancel the
Patta No. 225 in Survey No. 62/1C, 62/2C, 62/4A1, 62/4B1, 62/6C, 62/10D
which stands in the name of 7th and 8th respondents pursuant to the circular
Ref.No.K3/27160/2008 dated 13.03.2018 issued by the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : M/s.A.Rajeshkanna
For Respondents 1 to 6: Mr.P.Sathish
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner herein seeks a direction to respondents 2 to 5 to consider
his representation dated 06.03.2023 seeking cancellation of Patta No.225
issued in the names of respondents 7 and 8 pertains to property situated in
Survey Nos. 62/1C, 62/2C, 62/4A1, 62/4B1, 62/6C, 62/10D at Kattaamaduvu
Village, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father filed a suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction against several persons including
one Thollan. The said suit was dismissed and the first appeal filed by the
petitioner’s father also dismissed. Challenging the same, a second appeal was
filed in S.A.No.346 and 327 of 2008 and the same is pending. The 12 th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent in the second appeal namely Thollan executed a sale deed in
favour of one Vasugi, the 7th respondent herein. Based on the said document,
she got transfer of patta in her name. Subsequently, the said Vasugi sold the
subject property in favour of 8th respondent on 11.02.2023. Based on the said
sale deed, the 8th respondent also obtained patta in his name. Therefore, the
petitioner submitted a representation before the official respondents seeking
cancellation of the patta issued in the names of respondents 7 and 8. It is the
case of the petitioner that when the second appeal is pending before this Court,
the sale effected by one of the parties in the second appeal namely Thollan in
favour of 7th respondent and the subsequent sale executed by 7th respondent in
favour of 8th respondent are not valid in the eye of law.
3. From the averment found in the affidavit filed in support of this
petition, the respondents 7 and 8 appeared to be pendente lite purchaser from
one of the party in second appeal namely Thollan. Any sale pending litigation
is subject to the result of the same. However, pendente lite sale is not a void
one but the same is subject to the result of the suit or the appeal as the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
may be. In the absence of any prohibitory orders against one of the
respondents in the second appeal namely Thollan, he sold the property in
favour of 7th respondent and she inturn sold it in favour of 8th respondent.
Now, based on the said registered documents, mutation had also taken place in
favour of private respondents. When the second appeal is pending, it is not
open to the petitioner to seek cancellation of the revenue documents in favour
of the respondents 7 and 8. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue any
positive direction to respondents in this case. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the
pending second appeal and in case of his success in second appeal, he can seek
mutation of revenue records based on judgment delivered in second appeal.
No costs.
01.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
nr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Commissioner of Land Admnistration
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai-28
2. The Collector
Thiruvannamalai
Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The District Revenue Officer
Thiruvannamalai Town,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Thiruvannamalai Town,
Thiruvannamalai District.
5. The Tahsildar
Chengam Taluk,
Chengam, Thiruvannamalai.
6. The Village Administrative Officer
Melravanthavadi village, Chengam Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
nr
01.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
