Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
Mary Monica – Appellant
Versus
District Collector Thiruvallur District – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's chain of title and possession predates udr. (Para 2 , 3 , 8) |
| 2. tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to cancel patta. (Para 4 , 6 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. impugned order set aside; patta restored. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20.01.2021 passed by the 3rdrespondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, prior to the UDR survey, the property was in the name of one Rukmani Ammal. Subsequently, it was sold to the petitioner’s vendor/Irudhayam vide sale deed dated 24.01.1990. In the meantime, UDR patta, pertaining to the subject land, was wrongly granted in the name of one Ponnusamy, who is father of 4th respondent. Without knowing the said aspect, the petitioner purchased the subject property from his vendor-Irudhayam vide sale deed dated 22.08.1991.
3. Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner, being the absolute owner of the subject property, is in possession and enjoyment of the said property from the year 1991. However, without considering the same, at the instance of 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent had canceled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner vide impug
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
