Madras High Court
V.Raju vs The District Collector on 3 March, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.11038 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.(MD) No.11038 of 2017
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.8459 and 8460 of 2017
V.Raju ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Tahsildar,
Manachanallur Taluk,
Tiruchirappalli District.
4.G.Perumal (Died)
5.P.Kanagaraj
6.P.Thirupathi (Died)
7.Arunkumar ... Respondents
[R7 is substituted vide order dated 11.11.2024 in
W.M.P(MD)No.19801 of 2024]
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:21:17 am )
W.P.(MD) No.11038 of 2017
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third
respondent relating to adding the name of the respondents 4 to 6 in Patta No.3200
and quash the same and consequently, direct the third respondent to remove the
name of the respondents 4 to 6 in Patta No.3200.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Sivaram
For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran
Government Advocate for R1 to R3
Unclaimed for R5
Private notice unserved for R4 & R6
ORDER
Heard Mr.R.S.Sivaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
1 to 3.
2.The petitioner challenges the impugned order of the third respondent
incorporating the names of the private respondents 4 to 6 in Patta No.3200.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:21:17 am )
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in civil litigation
between the petitioner and the private respondents in O.S.No.62 of 2011 on the
file of the District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, Judgment and decree came to be passed
on 27.09.2011, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, for a permanent injunction to
restrain the defendants therein from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said suit has also attained
finality and the competent civil Court has found the plaintiff's lawful right to
enjoyment of the subject lands to exist as against the defendants therein, whose
interests are now represented by the private respondents in this writ petition.
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents
1 to 3, on written instructions from the Tahsildar, dated 23.02.2025, would submit
that the private respondents have not been able to establish any subsisting right in
the subject lands and therefore, the settlement deed executed based on the
inclusion of the private respondents' names in the patta is also not valid in the eye
of law. The Tahsildar has also further stated that he is in the process of collecting
the revenue records to restore the original names of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:21:17 am )
5.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned
order of the third respondent is set aside. The matter is remitted to the third
respondent/Tahsildar, who has already initiated proceedings in this regard, with a
direction to conclude the same within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
03.03.2025
sji
NCC: Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Tahsildar,
Manachanallur Taluk,
Tiruchirappalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:21:17 am )
P.B.BALAJI, J.
sji
03.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:21:17 am )
