Madras High Court
Jesu Mariya Susai vs The District Revenue Officer on 3 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.11478 of 2018
Lurdhu Mary (Died)
1.Jesu Mariya Susai
2.James Jeyapal
3.Rani
4.Annamary ... Appellants
(Appellants 1 to 4 / LRs of the deceased sole
appellant are substituted in the place of the
deceased sole appellant vide order dated
20.08.2024 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.7818 of 2024
in W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018 by PVJ & KKRKJ)
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o.District Revenue Office,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o.Revenue Divisional Office,
Revenue Department, Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018
3.The Thasildar,,
O/o.Thasildar,
Devakottai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
4.Susi Rathinam (Died)
5.Amirtha Arul Mary
6.Alex Arockiasamy
7.Amalarani
8.Annai
9.Augustine Arockiasamy
10.Anbuselvam ... Respondents
(Respondents 5 to 10 / LRs of the deceased
4th respondent are substituted vide order dated
29.11.2024 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.12862 of 2024
in W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018 by TKRJ & NSJ)
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to set aside
the order dated 05.09.2018 passed in W.P.(MD)No.19249 of 2018 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Balamurugan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian,
Spl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3.
Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan for R5 to R10
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1595 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)
Heard both sides.
2.This writ appeal was filed by one Lurdhu Mary questioning the
dismissal of W.P.(MD)No.19249 of 2018 vide order dated 05.09.2018.
Lurdhu Mary passed away during the pendency of this writ appeal. Her
legal heirs have come on record. Lurdhu Mary and the fourth respondent
namely, Susi Rathinam were siblings. Their father namely, Susi
Yakkappan had died. The claim of Lurdhu Mary was that Susi
Yakkappan had executed settlement deed settling 4 ½ cents in
S.No.124/10 in Orumaniyendhal Village. It is not in dispute that the
revenue record in respect of the said survey number stood in the name of
Susi Yakkappan. Lurdhu Mary sought mutation of revenue record on the
strength of the settlement deed dated 30.08.1976 executed by her father.
Her request was accepted and mutation was also effected. Thereafter, her
brother / Susi Rathinam sent representation dated 04.07.2008 seeking
cancellation. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai vide order
dated 15.12.2009 cancelled the patta issued in favour of Lurdhu Mary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Aggrieved by the same, Lurdhu Mary filed revision before the District
Revenue Officer, Sivagangai. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai
vide order dated 28.07.2018 affirmed the order passed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Devakottai and dismissed Lurdhu Mary's revision.
Questioning the same, Lurdhu Mary filed W.P.(MD)No.19249 of 2018.
It was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 05.09.2018 in the
following terms:-
“4.From the materials and pleadings disclosed in the
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it appears that
there is a civil dispute in regard to the ownership of the
property in question between the petitioner and the fourth
respondent and in regard to the same, a second appeal is also
pending before this Court. Moreover, from the orders passed by
the second and first respondents, it could be seen that the
authorities have examined various documents filed in support
of the rival claims made by the petitioner and the fourth
respondent and had come to the conclusion on certain factual
basis.
5.Since the writ petition is filed against the orders
passed by the second and first respondents and which would
involve adjudication of factual disputes in regard to the
ownership of the survey number in question, the same cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be done in a writ jurisdiction of this Court. In case the
petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the second and
first respondents, it is always open to him to obtain some orders
in the pending second appeal or he can approach the competent
civil Court in regard to the enforcement of his claim as against
the fourth respondent.
6.In view of the above position, this Court is of the
considered view that the writ petition as it is not maintainable
and therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.”
Challenging the same, this writ appeal came to be filed.
3.The question that calls for consideration is whether the learned
Single Judge was right in non-suiting Lurdhu Mary.
4.The specific stand of the department is that S.No.124/9 is
admittedly a water body (Konathan Oorani). It is further claimed by the
department that there is no physical boundary between S.No.124/9 and
S.No.124/10. According to them, Konathan Oorani encompasses
S.No.124/9 as well as S.No.124/10. It is also pointed out that Lurdhu
Mary filed O.S.No.119 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tiruvadanai claiming partition. S.No.124/10 was also included in the
suit schedule. The suit was dismissed and A.S.No.18 of 1997 was
dismissed by the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram. Questioning the same,
Lurdhu Mary filed S.A.No.2044 of 1999 before this Court. The second
appeal suffered dismissal for non-prosecution on 05.07.2023. In this
factual background, the learned Single Judge was of the view that since
disputed questions of fact are involved, it is only just and proper that the
aggrieved litigant must go before the jurisdictional Civil Court. We are
of the view that the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge is
justified. Interference is not warranted and the writ appeal is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,)
03.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:-
1.The District Revenue Officer,
O/o.District Revenue Office,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o.Revenue Divisional Office,
Revenue Department, Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Thasildar,,
O/o.Thasildar,
Devakottai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ias
03.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
