Madras High Court
B.Basavaraj vs Krishnappa on 27 March, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2025:MHC:844
W.A.No.947 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN
Writ Appeal No.947 of 2025
and CMP No.7969 of 2025
B.Basavaraj
.. Appellant
vs
1.Krishnappa
2.Rajendran
3.The Sub-Collector,
Office of the Sub-Collectorate,
Hosur – 635 109,
Krishnagiri District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Shoolagiri Taluk Office,
Shoolagiri – 635 117,
Krishnagiri District.
.. Respondents
Prayer : APPEAL filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
Order passed in W.P.No.33989 of 2024 dated 20.11.2024 on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Ms.M.Pavitra
For Respondents : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar (for R1 & R2)
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 05:49:23 pm )
The private respondent/R3 in the Writ Petition is the appellant
before us. The Writ Petition had been filed seeking a mandamus to the
Sub-Collector, Krishnagiri District to consider the appeal petition dated
19.09.2024 for issuance of patta in favour of the Writ Petitioners in
respect of the lands ad measuring 5.54 acres in S.Nos.86/4, 87/3 and 88/2
at Chennapalli Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District
('property'/'property in question').
2. That Writ Petition has come to be disposed on 20.11.2024 after
hearing the learned counsel for R3 as well, who has filed the present Writ
Appeal. In conclusion, the Writ Petition has come to be allowed and a
mandamus was issued to the Sub-Collector to conduct an inquiry and
pass a speaking order in appeal petition dated 19.09.2024.
3. Though the learned Judge has not specifically directed that the
private respondent also be heard while disposing the appeal, Ms.Pavithra,
learned counsel for the appellant would confirm that notice has been
issued to the appellant and the appellant's contentions have also been
heard. Her specific argument before us is that there are civil suits
pending in regard to the title to the property in question.
4. In such circumstances, it is inappropriate for the Writ Petitioner
to have filed an application for cancellation of patta and moreover, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 05:49:23 pm )
appeal challenging an order passed rejecting the representation.
According to her, the Writ Petition was filed merely to enable the
proceedings to go on in respect of the petitioner's representation which
itself ought not to have been considered bearing in mind the pendency of
the civil suits.
5. This argument can well be advanced before the Sub-Collector,
Krishnagiri, who shall consider the same while disposing the appeal
petition dated 19.09.2024. Full liberty is granted to the appellant to
canvass this position along with relevant case law before the appellate
authority.
6. With this and as this would take care of the interests of the
appellant in the present appeal, nothing further arises for consideration.
This Writ Appeal is closed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition
is also closed.
[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J]
sl 27.03.2025
Index:No
Speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 05:49:23 pm )
C. KUMARAPPAN.,J
sl
To
1.The Sub-Collector,
Office of the Sub-Collectorate,
Hosur – 635 109,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Shoolagiri Taluk Office,
Shoolagiri – 635 117,
Krishnagiri District.
27.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 05:49:23 pm )
