Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
K.Parvathi – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur – Respondent
ORDER :
P.T. ASHA, J.
The Writ Petitions are filed to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant patta with reference to the properties of the respective petitioners.
2. Since the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions seek a similar relief and the subject matter is also common to all, this Court is passing a common order.
3. The brief facts are herein below narrated:-
The petitioners have purchased the following sites:-
| Name of the petitioner | House site number | extent | survey number |
| K.Parvathi | 88C | 1417 1/2 sq.ft. | 468/3 |
| A.Devika | 54 | 1300 sq.ft. | 479/1 |
| R.Durai | 113 | 1300 sq.ft. | 441/4, 6, 442/3 & 479/1 |
| N.Nallaammal | 439 | 1300 sq.ft. | 479/2 |
| R.Rani | 157A | 1300 sq.ft. | 441/2 and 7 |
| R.Kolanchiaammal 43 | 1300 sq.ft. | 442/3 and 479/1 | |
| N.Baskar | 341 | 1300 sq.ft. | 441/7C, 7D, 7F, 7G, 7H, 442/1B, 1C, 1F, 1E, 1H, 1G, 468/3, 479/3A, 442/3 and 441/5 |
| N.Krishnan | 128 and 129 | 2600 sq.ft. | 441/4 |
| Veeran | 146 | 1300 Sq.ft. | 441/6 |
| B.Radha | 97 | 1300 sq.ft. | 442/3 |
| A.Anbalagan | 166 | 1300 sq.ft. | 441/5 and 7 |
| N.Maheswari | 221 | 1300 sq.ft. | 442/1 |
4. It is their case that when they had made arrangements for putting up construction on the said sites and sought approval for construction, they cam
The court reaffirmed that without clear evidence of conditional assignment, prior ownership rights should prevail, granting the petitioners entitlement to patta.
The court emphasized the necessity for governmental compliance with prior court orders concerning land assignment, asserting that logged records must accurately reflect legal ownership.
Point of Law- Several illegal transactions were taken place in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 as amended in Act 8 of 2007. Hence....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellate authority to consider all relevant aspects, provide reasons for its decision, and adhere to principles of natu....
The court held that the petitioners could not claim rights to land classified as Government Poramboke due to the suppression of a material rectification deed, emphasizing the finality of orders under....
Authority must avoid unjust cancellation of property rights without valid reasons, emphasizing the necessity for resolution of title disputes in civil courts as mandated by law.
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
