The District Revenue Officer, v. K Leelavathi

2025:MHC:1663

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.07.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.A.No.2133 of 2025 and CMP.No.16146 of 2025 1.The District Revenue Officer, District Collector office Complex, Coimbatore.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore.

3.The Tahsildar, Perur, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore.

.. Appellants K.Leelavathi .. Respondent Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the orders dated 22.10.2024 made in W.P.No.29290 of 2024 on the file of this Court.

For Appellants :

Mr.R.Ramanlaal, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader 1/4

For Respondent :

Mr.D.Shivakumaran

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J) The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent challenging an order passed by the District Revenue Officer dated 19.07.2024 with consequential relief to direct the Tahsildar to issue patta in respect of the land in Survey No.620/1, admeasuring 35 cents at Vadavalli Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District ('land'/'land in question'). 2.The writ Court has rendered an unambiguous finding that the respondent had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.992 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the appellants from disturbing her enjoyment. The suit was contested by the appellants and after contest, it was decreed in favour of the respondent as early as on 17.09.2011. 3.It is an admitted position that the decree has attained finality and no appeal has been filed by the appellants. In such circumstances, the writ Court has concluded that there was nothing untoward in the respondent seeking issuance of patta in respect of the property in question.

4.Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by 2/4

Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants would merely reiterate the facts that were already presented before the Court relating to the conditional assignment. However, as rightly noticed by the Court, the findings of the Civil Court are to the effect that the property in question is not conditionally assigned and the title of the writ petitioner to the same was unimpeachable.

5.The matter has ultimately been remanded back for consideration of the request of the writ petitioner based on the Civil Court's decree and a time frame of eight (8) weeks has been fixed. We are in agreement with the order of the writ Court and opine that the order impugned in writ petition has rightly been quashed.

6.This Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[A.S.M., J] [N.S., J] 14.07.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking order 3/4

DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J.

and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

and CMP.No.16146 of 2025 14.07.2025 4/4