HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
VADIVEL – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
Property - Writ Petitions - Act Section List - Summary
Fact of the Case:
Writ petitioners challenge an order that cancels their land patta and issues a new one to another party, following the pending suits related to the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the status of the property should be maintained until the civil suits are resolved and the first respondent's findings will not influence the civil court's determination.
Issues: The main issue is whether the first respondent had the authority to cancel the petitioners' patta given that the ownership claims are under dispute in pending civil suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The cancellation order is considered subject to the outcome of pending civil suits; the civil court's final judgment will determine the rightful ownership.
Final Decision: Writ petitions are disposed of, maintaining status quo until the civil suits are resolved.
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Mu.31576/2023/Pa2 dated 10.06.2024 and call for the impugned patta No.6130 dated 24.06.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of 5th respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to restore petitioners' patta Nos.3821 & 3820 till the suits in O.S. Nos.32 and 31 of 2024 on the file of District Munsif, Dharmapuri are decided on merits.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the petitioners' father has purchased 1 Acre 5 Cents in S. No.965 of Adhiyamankottai Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District in the year 1979 vide Document No.338 of 1979. Similarly, he purchased another extent of 19.5 cents of land was purchased in the same survey number in the year 1981 bearing Document No.2280 of 1981. He also purchased 20 cents with ¼ share in well in the same survey number in the year 1997 bearing Document No.2635 of 1997. The fifth respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S. No.354 of 1997 as against petitioners' father and vendors by seeking passage right through S. Nos.956/2, 965/4 and 965/7 and 3/4 share. The suit was decreed on 29.09.2000. The petitioners are in possession of the property. After the demise of their father, they partitioned the properties. Pursuant to the partition deed, they are in possession of the property and pattas have been issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 2019 by the third respondent. Thereafter, on the application of the 5th respondent, the impugned orders came to be passed.
3. The writ petitioners challenge the impugned order mainly on the ground that the first respondent has gone into the title of the property, particularly, when the suits are pending. Hence the learned counsel's submission is that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
4. I have perused the entire materials available on record and heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. Though the impugned order cancelling the patta issued by the Tahsildar on the ground that the petitioners' father had purchased the property from the person, who did not have right over the property, whereas the 5th respondent has title over the property, since the suits in O.S. Nos.31 and 32 of 2024 are pending, the impugned order is subject to the result of the said suits and as per the result of the suits, the proceedings will be immediately challenged without any enquiry. Pursuant to the said order, it appears that the Tahsildar has mutated the name of the fifth respondent. Considering the fact that the order is subject to the result of the suits, this court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by mere changing of the patta in favour of the 5th respondent. Admittedly, O.S. Nos.31 and 32 of 2024 filed by the parties are pending before the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri. In such view of the matter, let the civil court decide the issue between the parties on the basis of the evidence and documents that may be adduced in the suits. It is made clear that the civil court shall not be influenced by any finding of the first respondent. In fact, the finding of the first respondent will not bind on the civil court. Further, mere change of patta in the name of the fifth respondent will not have any effect. Let the parties shall maintain status quo and there shall not be any alienation till the disposal of the suits.
6. With the above observation, the writ petitions are disposed of.
However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.07.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Asr To
1.The District Revenue Officer Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri
3.The Tahsildar Nallampalli Taluk Dharmapuri
4.The Village Administrative Officer Adhiyamankottai Village Nallampalli Taluk Dharmapuri
5.The Government Pleader Hig
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.