Madras High Court
K. Alagarsamy vs Additional Collector-Cum on 13 September, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A(MD)No.1559 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.1559 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.12241 of 2024
K. Alagarsamy ... Appellant / Writ Petitioner
-vs-
1.Additional Collector-Cum-
District Additional Magistrate,
Thoothukudi-Thoothukudi District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kovilpatti,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Vilathikulam,
Thoothukudi district.
4.Thilagaveni ... Respondents / Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order
dated 22.06.2020 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6927 of 2020.
For Appellant : Mr.M.R. Sreenivasan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 4
W.A(MD)No.1559 of 2024
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.P.T. Thiraviam,
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
The proceedings under the Patta Passbook Act, 1983, were made subject
matter of the writ petition. Challenge in the writ petition was to the order of the
Additional Collector – Cum – District Magistrate, Tuticorin, dated 11.02.2020,
wherein the revision petition filed by the appellant was rejected, referring him to
the Civil Court. The Writ Court dismissed the challenge on the premise that
disputed questions of title cannot be gone into by the revenue authorities or by
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Court had also
referred to the settled proposition of law on this aspect. Mr.M.R.Srinivasan the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that only
when there is a semblance of title in the rival claimants, the appellant could be
forced to go to the Civil Court.
2. A perusal of the order of the Additional Collector reveals that there are
certain discrepancies in the survey numbers and the authority felt that there is a
genuine issue regarding title to the property in question. In view of the said
conclusion, if we are to go into the factual position, we will be entering upon the
arena of title and deciding a dispute regarding title.
3. We do not think, we can do that in exercise of our jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. We make
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
it clear if the appellant approaches the Civil Court, the Civil Court will decide the
issue independently without being influenced by any of the observations made by
the authorities in the proceedings under the Patta Passbook Act, 1983. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
13.09.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet: Yes
Sml
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Chennai-34.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Mayiladuthurai,
Mayiladuthurai District.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
13.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
