Madras High Court
T.Karunanithi vs The District Revenue Officer on 12 March, 2025
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.6 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.6 of 2023
AND
W.M.P.No.2 of 2023
T.Karunanithi .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Revenue Officer
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur
3.The Tahsildar
Thiruvallur Taluk
Thiruvallur District
4.Suyam Prakash .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to
st
the impugned order passed by the 1 respondent in Na.Ka.No.2918/2020/A3 on
rd
30.12.2020 and quash the same and direct the 3 respondent to restore patta in
petitioner's name for land comprised in survey No.267/7A1B situated at
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
W.P.No.6 of 2023
Perambakkam Village, Thiruvallur District admeasuring 0.02.0 hectares within a
time frame that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.R.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.R.Karunagaran
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of
st
the 1 respondent dated 30.12.2020 and for a consequential direction to the
rd
3 respondent to restore the patta in the name of the petitioner with respect to the
subject property.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his father is the owner of the subject
property. He executed a will dated 30.12.2002 and the property was bequeathed in
favour of the petitioner. The petitioner became the owner of the property, after the
demise of his father and patta was issued in favour of the petitioner in patta
th rd
No.6422/2010. The 4 respondent filed a petition before the 3 respondent seeking
rd
cancellation of patta that stood in the name of the petitioner. The 3 respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
through proceedings dated 14.12.2017, cancelled the patta standing in the name of
the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
nd
2 respondent and the said appeal was also rejected by order dated 27.06.2018.
st
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the 1 respondent and
st
the 1 respondent, through the impugned proceedings dated 30.12.2002, rejected
the revision. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before
this Court.
3. On carefully considering the materials placed before this Court and also
the reasoning that has been assigned by the respondents while cancelling the patta
issued in favour of the petitioner, it is seen that they have all placed reliance upon
the common judgment that was passed by the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur,
in O.S.Nos.879 of 1988 and 711 of 1989 dated 24.02.1997.
4. O.S.No.879 of 1988 was filed by the father of the petitioner seeking relief
of permanent injunction and O.S.No.711 of 1989 was filed by the rival party who
was also seeking permanent injunction, not to grant any electricity connection to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
the father of the petitioner. Both the suits were taken up together and joint trial
was conducted. One of the main issue that was framed by the trial Court is, as to
whether the predecessor-in-title had the right to convey the property in favour of
the petitioner's father. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to a
conclusion that predecessor-in-title had no right to convey the property and
therefore, no title passed on to the petitioner's father. Accordingly, the suit filed by
the petitioner's father in O.S.No.879 of 1988 was dismissed and the suit filed by
the rival party in O.S.No.711 of 1989 was allowed. It is also brought to the notice
of this Court that the appeal filed against the said judgment and decree with delay
also came to be dismissed.
5. The revenue authorities cannot disregard such a judgment and decree
passed by the civil Court and they have to necessarily act in accordance with the
judgment and decree passed by the civil Court as prescribed in Revenue Standing
Orders (RSO) 31(4). This RSO specifically provides that in cases of transfer of
titles on holdings in the name of decree holders with reference to a decree of a civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
Court, the revenue authority will have to necessarily give effect to the decree
passed by the civil Court. There is no discretion given to the revenue authorities
and it is a compulsory transfer that has to be made by the revenue authorities.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the revenue authorities strictly
followed this RSO and had gone by the judgment of the civil Court. Hence, the
st
reasoning given by the 1 respondent while dismissing the revision petition does
not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Court. The
revenue authorities cannot grant patta in favour of the petitioner, merely because
the patta originally stood in his name.
In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected
W.M.P. is closed.
12.03.2025
gya
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
gya
To
1.The District Revenue Officer
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur
3.The Tahsildar
Thiruvallur Taluk W.P.No.6 of 2023
Thiruvallur District
12.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
