Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr Justice P.B. Balaji, J
Ajith Selvins.S.B. – Appellant
Versus
District Revenue Officer, O/o the District Revenue Officer – Respondent
ORDER :
The writ petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent in Moo.Mu.Aa3/5234/2021 dated 09.04.2022.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the property comprised in re-survey No.430/3A1A of Pacode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, measuring 29.500 cents belongs to the petitioner's family and the said lands comprised in re-survey No.430/3A1A correlated to old survey No.2705, being portion of a larger extent of 38.950 cents, was subject matter of final decree made in O.S.No.416 of 1974 dated 22.08.1978. The said O.S.No.416 of 1974 was filed for partition and 38.950 cents stood allotted to Neelu @ Annammal and the said Neelu @ Annammal took possession and also mutated revenue records in her name. Subsequently, on 04.03.2004, the said Neelu @ Annammal executed two settlement deeds in favour of her son, viz., Selvadhas and her daughter, viz., Mary Pushpa Bai. The writ petitioner is the son of said Selvadhas. Under the said settlement deed, the son was given 28.95 cents and daughter Mary Pushpa Bai was given 10 cents. The son Selvadhas pursuant to the settlement deed dated 04.03.2004, effected mutation of the revenue records in his name and has been in contin
Subdivision of property must respect existing legal rights and require notification of all parties involved to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice.
The rejection of a patta application by a quasi-judicial authority is perverse when it disregards credible evidence and established legal procedures, warranting the intervention of higher courts.
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to resolve complex title disputes, which must be adjudicated by civil courts.
The court emphasized that revenue authorities must not alter land records without clear evidence of title, especially when prior claims have been dismissed.
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate on matters of title and possession, which are reserved for civil courts, and must respect prior civil court findings.
The transferee or subsequent purchaser can maintain an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, and misquoting the provision of law cannot be a ground for rejecting the application.
The High Court confirmed rights established under a 1955 partition decree, emphasizing that the execution of civil court judgments must be respected without unauthorized administrative interference.
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to resolve title disputes and must refer such matters to civil courts for adjudication.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
