Madras High Court
Pappa @ Shanthi vs The District Revenue Officer on 18 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.23381 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.23381 of 2018
and WMP(MD) Nos.21227 & 21228 of 2018
Pappa @ Shanthi
... Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Usilampatti, Madurai.
3. The Tahsildar,
Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai.
4. Vijaya
5. Jeyabalan
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records
relating to the impugned order dated 22/10/2018 passed in Ne.Mu.No.
35102/2016/G2 by the first respondent confirming the impugned order
dated 30/06/2016 passed in Na.Ka.No.2703/2013/A2 by the second
respondent and quash the same and consequentially restore the order
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23381 of 2018
dated 15/03/2013 in R.T.R. No.3001 of 2012 passed by the third
respondent and restoring patta No.1927 for Survey No.176/16B,
Seemanuthu Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District measuring 40
Ares in the name of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan(R1-R3)
Additional Government Pleader
Mr.R.Murali (R4, R5)
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the
first respondent, dated 22.10.2018, confirming the order of the second
respondent, dated 30.06.2016 and consequently to restore the patta in the
name of the order of the third respondent, dated 15.03.2013.
2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
though the order of the first respondent is appealable to the District
Revenue Officer under Patta Pass Book Act, the only reason why the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
statutory remedy is not availed on and the instant writ petition has been
filed is because of the fact that the Revenue Divisional Officer has
ignored the finding of the competent Civil Court, in a suit between the
petitioner and the 4th respondent. He would take me through the
Judgment and Decree of the Civil Court in O.S.No.153 of 1999, where
the decree came to be passed in the presence of the 4th respondent, who
was the 2nd defendant in the said suit. The learned counsel would also
submit that aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, the 4th respondent has
preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. However, according to
the petitioner's counsel, suppressing the said decree and dismissal of the
appeal in O.S.No.153 of 1999, the 4th respondent has filed yet another
suit in O.S.No.19 of 2015 and the same is admittedly pending. In the
meantime, the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent.
4.The short contention raised by the learned counsel of the
petitioner is that when the Civil Court had granted a decree, which has
become final and the decree, entitles the writ petitioner to have access
from Batlagundu Road and based on the decree, sub-division had been
effected. Without properly appreciating the finding rendered in the earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
suit in O.S.No.153 of 1999 the first respondent has directed to recall of
the sub-division.
5.The only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is to remit
the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration of the request
and by the 4th respondent for cancellation of the sub-division, taking into
account the available materials namely, the Commissioner's Report as
well as plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner, in which, the Advocate
Commissioner has given the linear measurements of the subject
properties. He would further contend that the 4th respondent did not even
chose to file his objections to the Advocate Commissioner's report in the
earlier suit.
6.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
4 and 5 would submit that none of the sale deeds and even in the decree
passed in O.S.No.153 of 1999, the linear measurements have been
specified and therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the order of
the 1st respondent, which is impunged in the present writ petition. He
would further submit that the petitioner cannot compel the revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
authorities to adopt a particular linear measurement, unless there is
consensus between the parties. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
7.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that any direction issued by this
Court would be complied by them and it is only a rival dispute between
the petitioner and the 4th respondent.
8.Considering the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel on either side, my attention is invited to the rough sketch
enclosed along with the typed set of papers. Both the counsels placed
reliance on the sketch filed by the 4th respondent in O.S.No.19 of 2015,
which is a suit filed by the 4th respondent against the writ petitioner
herein.
9.On a perusal of the sketch, I find that in the sketch that has
been relied on by the 4th respondent, he has given measurement of the
four outer boundaries. However, the linear measurements of the
properties belonging to the petitioner and the 4th respondent are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
given. It is seen from the sketch and reading it along with Judgment in
O.S.No.153 of 1999, it is clear that while declaring entitlement of the
writ petitioner, the competent Civil Court has given a categorical finding
that the petitioner has access to reach Batlagundu road by using the
'CDEF' portion. The vendor of the writ petitioner made an attempt to
take away 'CDEF' portion by executing a rectification deed. However,
the said rectification deed has been set aside in O.S.No.153 of 1999 and
the same has attained finality, since the appeal preferred by the 4th
respondent was also dismissed. Therefore, the first respondent was
certainly entitled to look into the Commissioner's report as well as survey
plan, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and the 4 th
respondent before taking any decision on the linear measurement of the
property. Without doing so, the 4th respondent merely proceeded to set
aside the sub-division which was ordered only pursuant to the Judgment
and Decree in O.S.No.153 of 1999.
10.In view of the above, the impugned orders deserve to be
set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh
consideration of the matter, after affording a fair opportunity by way of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
personal hearing to both the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 and 5
and also taking into account the documents that have been relied on by
the Civil Court in O.S.No.153 of 1999, which came to be confirmed in
A.S.No.139 of 2009 and thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall pass final
orders on the application of the respondents 4 and 5 for cancellation of
the sub-division, in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be
completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of this order.
11.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
PNM
TO:-
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Usilampatti, Madurai.
3. The Tahsildar,
Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.B. BALAJI, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
and WMP(MD) Nos.21227 & 21228 of 2018
18.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
