Madras High Court
M.Kaladevi vs / on 24 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.2795 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.2795 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2292 & 2293 of 2021
1.M.Kaladevi
2.Vijayarani .... Petitioners
/Vs./
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sankarankovil Taluk.
4.S.Kasthuri Jeyarani .... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating
to the impugned order of the first respondent in Pa.Mu.Kaa2/SemA.
15/17(19278/17) dated 21.10.2020 confirming the impugned order
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:01 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.2795 of 2021
passed by the second respondent in Ne.Mu.A3/2432/2015 dated 22.03.17
and quash the both and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take
cognizance of the issuance of patta after the Principal District Munsif
Court, Sankarankovil delivers judgment in O.S.No.75/2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Udayakumar
for Mr.H.Arumugam
For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.F.X.Eugene
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent, dated
21.10.2020, confirming the order of the second respondent dated
22.03.2017 and consequently, seeks for issuance of patta after disposal of
the O.S.No.75 of 2024 pending on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Sankarankovil.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
Mr.K.K.Udayakumar for Mr.H.Arumugam, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and
Mr.F.X.Eugene, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:01 pm )
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would take me through
the orders of the second respondent as well as the first respondent and
contend that apart from the 5 cents that was purchased by the mother of
the petitioner's from her sister, who is none other than the mother of the
fourth respondent, the petitioner's mother was also in possession of a
further extent of 2.83 cents, and in respect of the entire 7.83 cents patta
was mutated in the name of the petitioner's mother. The learned counsel
for the petitioner would further submit that when patta has been issued to
the petitioners, the fourth respondent ought to have approached the
competent Civil Court and the directions issued otherwise by the revenue
authorities is wholly unsustainable.
4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth
respondent would submit that the petitioners cannot get better title than
what was conveyed. The revenue authorities have rightly gone into the
entitlement of the petitioners for an extent of 7.83 cents, which is beyond
their lawful entitlement of 5 cents and further, he would submit that the
petitioners have filed several suits, which have been subsequently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:01 pm )
withdrawn and even in the pending suit in O.S.No.75 of 2014 which has
been filed by the petitioners, a counter claim has been preferred by the
fourth respondent seeking recovery of possession.
5. I find that the authorities have come to the conclusion that in
view of the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.75 of 2014, before the
Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, the successful party in
the litigation may approach the revenue authorities after disposal the suit.
I do not find fault with the said finding arrived by the authorities and it is
in order. It is only with regard to the fact that the District Revenue
Officer had directed cancellation of patta standing in the name of the
fourth respondent, and directed the same to be mutated in the name of the
mother of the fourth respondent, which is now put to test by the
petitioners. The petitioners are unable to prima facie establish their
entitlement to an extent exceeding 5 cents, which alone was purchased by
their mother from the fourth respondent's mother and thereafter, the
petitioner's mother in and by settlement deeds has settled 2.5 cents each,
to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners entitlement to an extent of
7.83 cents is certainly questionable. The authorities, therefore, have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:01 pm )
rightly held that in the absence of any satisfactory documentary evidence
to substantiate the patta in respect of 7.83 cents, they have proceeded to
cancel the patta and restore the name of the fourth respondent's mother,
leaving to open to the parties to approach the authorities after conclusion
of the Civil Proceedings in O.S.No.75 of 2014, on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil. I do not find any
perversity of illegality in the finding rendered by the revenue authorities
namely, the Tashildar, no merit in the petition.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the
petitioners to approach the revenue authorities in the event of being
successful in the civil suit. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No 24.03.2025
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:01 pm )
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sankarankovil Taluk.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:01 pm )
P.B. BALAJI, J.
am
Order made in
Dated:
24.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:01 pm )
