Madras High Court
K.Leelavathi vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 October, 2024
W.P.No.29290 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.29290 of 2024
K.Leelavathi ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
District Collector Office Complex,
Coimbatore.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore.
3.The Tahsildar,
Perur, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent relating to the impugned proceedings vide
Na.Ka.No.18261/2020/aa1 dated 19.07.2024 and to quash the same and
consequently direct the 3rd respondent to issue patta for the petitioner's land
in Survey No.620/1 measuring about 35 cents situated at Vadavalli Village,
Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Thirumalai
For Respondents : Mr.S.J.Sathik Mohamed
Government Advocate
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29290 of 2024
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent in
Na.Ka.No.18261/2020/aa1, dated 19.07.2024 affirming the order passed by
respondents 2 and 3 negativing the request of the petitioner to issue of patta
for the land measuring an extent of 35 cents situated in Survey No.620/1,
Vadavalli Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District, the petitioner has come
before this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the above mentioned property
was purchased by her under a registered Sale Deed dated 30.03.1995 vide
Document No.3420 of 1995 from Arumugam and others.
3. The respondents herein made an attempt to resume the subject
property on the ground that it was sold in violation of assignment
conditions. Therefore, the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S.No.992 of 2007
on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, against the
respondents seeking declaration of her title and injunction restraining the
respondents from any way disturbing the petitioner's enjoyment. The said
suit was decreed after contest.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Civil Court would suggest
that there was a finding by the Civil Court that subject property was not a
conditionally assigned land and cancellation of assignment in favour of the
beneficiary was not done by following due process of law. The Civil Court
decree's was passed as early as 17th September, 2011.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is
unable to give any particulars regarding the appeal filed by the respondents
challenging the Civil Court order. Therefore, the finding of the Civil Court
upholding the title of the petitioner had attained finality.
6. Based on the Civil Court's decree in her favour, the petitioner
submitted a representation before the respondents seeking issue of patta in
respect of the property purchased by her, the same has been rejected by the
3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the 2nd respondent and the same was also dismissed. Hence, the
petitioner preferred a revision before the 1st respondent and the same was
dismissed by impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In the impugned order, the 1st respondent without taking into
consideration the civil court's decree which had attained finality,
erroneously held that the petitioner purchased property violating the
assignment conditions and hence, the request of the petitioner for grant of
patta cannot be considered. The 1st respondent also observed that in view of
the violation of the assignment conditions, the subject property was resumed
and classified as a 'Government Poramboke'. It was also observed by the 1st
respondent that 1 acre and 57 cents of land in Survey No.620/1 was resumed
on the ground that the said property was alienated violating the assignment
conditions and subsequently, classified as Government Poramboke.
8. As mentioned earlier, the Civil Court had given a finding that the
subject property was not a conditionally assigned land and cancellation of
assignment was also done without following due process of law. Ultimately,
the petitioner's title in respect of 35 cents of land purchased by her in
Survey No.620/1 was declared and respondents were injuncted from
interfering with her possession. The respondents have not filed any appeal
and civil court's finding had attained finality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 1st
respondent is a clear violation by the judgment and decree passed by the
Civil Court and hence, the same is quashed. The matter is remanded back to
the file of 1st respondent with a direction to consider the request of the
petitioner to issue patta in respect of 35 cents in S.No.620/1 on the basis of
Civil Court's judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.992 of 2007 on the file
of the IVth Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, declaring the petitioner's
title dated 30.03.1995. The 1st respondent shall pass final orders based on
the Civil Court's decree within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
22.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
District Collector Office Complex,
Coimbatore.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore.
3.The Tahsildar,
Perur, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
