Advocates:
['M/S V RAGHAVACHARI', '', 'V SRIMATHI', 'V LAKSHMINARAYANAN', 'AGP', '', 'M/S K RAJA SRINIVAS', 'M/S S SELVANANDAM', 'D HARIPRASAD']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 09.02.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

W.P.No.9719 of 2010

and

M.P.No.1 of 2010

Sathyavathy

W/o.Kondalu Ram

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner

of land Administration, Chepauk,

Madras-5.

2.The District Revenue Officer,

Chennai.

3.The Tashildar,

Mylapore,

Triplicane Taluk,

4.C.Anantha Raman

5.Chennai Metropolitan and Development Authority,

Egmore, Chennai.

... Respondents

(R5-Suomotu Impleaded as per order dated 19.10.2011 by NKKJ in

W.P.No.9719 of 2010)

Prayer: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to

call for the records on the file of the first respondent in

proceedings D.Dis.K4/7999/09 and dated 31.03.2010 and quash the

same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and

further direct the third respondent to restore the patta in the

name of the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari

For Respondents: Mr.M.Elumalai

For R1 to R3

Mr.Selvendran for R4

Mr.R.Gopinath for R5 (S.C)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

The writ petition is filed for issuing a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of the

first respondent in proceedings D.Dis.K4/7999/09 dated

31.03.2010 and further direct the third respondent to restore

the patta in the name of the petitioner.

2.Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ

petition are as follows:-

The case of the petitioner is that the revenue patta was

issued to her for an extent of 4 grounds and 133 sq.ft based on

the revenue records. It is stated that a little property which

stands in the name of the petitioner was acquired for laying the

inner ring road. It is also admitted by the petitioner that he

sold a portion of the property measuring 1674 squre feet in

survey No.1/69 in favour of the fourth respondent. The remaining

extent of 4 grounds and 133 square feet was retained by the

petitioner. The petitioner has now filed the writ petition

challenging the impugned order of District Revenue Officer

holding that the petitioner is not entitled to patta to the land.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

impugned order came to be passed without considering the right

and title.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent

produced a copy of the judgment and decree passed by the

Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 29.11.2019 in

O.S.No.10035 of 2010, before this Court. It is an admitted fact

that the suit in O.S.No.10035 of 2010 has been filed by the

fourth respondent against the petitioner and others. While

decreeing said suit, the Civil Court has held that the

petitioner and the other defendants have not established their

tittle or enjoyment.

5.Reading of the judgment shows that the Civil Court has

specifically framed the issues relating to ownership or tittle

of the property. The Civil Court granted decree in favour of

fourth respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner states that an appeal has been filed by the writ

petitioner and others as against the judgment and decree passed

in O.S.No.10035 of 2020 and the same is pending. He further

states that the appeal is yet to be numbered.

6.This Court is unable to find any justification to grant

any relief in the writ petition. The appeal alleged to have been

filed is yet to be numbered. This Court is unable to find any

merits in this writ petition. It is open to the petitioner to

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

establish her title and possession of the property before the

appellate Court.

7.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. N