Kannammal v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR 1.Kannammal 2.Saravanammal 3.Arumugam 4.Mahanandhi ...
Petitioners versus 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
3.The Sub Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
5.The Tahsildar, Anchetty Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
6.The Village Administrative Officer, Anchetty Village, Anchetty Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
1/6
7.R.Muniyammal 8.Meena 9.Manickammal 10.M.Muniyammal ...
Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent vide Pa.Mu.24070/2021/J2 dated 28.02.2022 and to quash the same and to consequently directing the 5th respondent to restore the status of the patta to its previous state.
For Petitioners :
Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondent Nos.1 to 6 :
Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the District Revenue Officer.
2.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in W.P.No.7566 of 2024 this Court directed the Inspector of Police to enquire the complaint after giving an opportunity and pass an order. However, the Tahsildar issued summons to the petitioners.
2/6
3.
On perusal of the entire order, in this regard, from the factual aspects, it appears that there is a dispute between the legal heirs in respect of the entry in the revenue records. The property was owned by one Perumal Gounder. He had three sons, namely P.Konappan, P.Mariappan and P.Krishnan. During the submissions, when the Court posed various questions, it was the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that Konappan had sold his share by way of an unregistered sale deed in favour of Mariappan. Therefore, Mariappan is in the possession. Such being the position, Konappan legal heirs sought to include their names in the revenue records. Therefore, challenging the same, the writ petition is filed. 4.
From the nature of the documents, particularly the revenue records it would indicate that the dispute is with regard to the shares of the parties.
5.
In such view of the matter, instead of referring the revenue proceedings, let the parties approach the Civil Court to establish their rights. Whatever orders are passed by the Revenue Authorities in this regard, will 3/6
not bind on all the parties. The Civil Court, on such a suit being filed, decides the matter based on the parties rights.
6.
With the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
12.06.2024 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No : Yes / No sri 4/6
To 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
3.The Sub Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
5.The Tahsildar, Anchetty Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
6.The Village Administrative Officer, Anchetty Village, Anchetty Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
5/6
N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.
sri 12.06.2024 6/6