G.Rathinammal v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE: 10.8.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.NO.33492 OF 2019 G.Rathinammal ... Petitioner .Vs.

1. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai.

4. The Tahsildar, Keelapennathur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai.

5. Ganapathy

6. S.Palani (R6 impleaded vide order dated 6.12.2019 in W.M.P.No.34880/2019) ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 4.11.2019 to cancel the patta granted in favour of the 5th respondent in respect of land measuring 2.66 acres in Survey No.41/2A of Sorathur Village, Keezhapennathur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Janakiram For RR1 to 4 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate For R5 & R6 : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 4 to consider his representation dated 4.11.2019 which had been given seeking to cancel the patta granted in favour of the fifth respondent Ganapathy.

2. Let me not go into the details of the issues raised because of an order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Tahsildar, Kilpennathur which had been produced by the learned Government Advocate Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan wherein it had been noted with respect to the representation dated 4.11.2019 the said Ganapathy had transferred rather conveyed the land to Palani son of Subramani, the sixth respondent herein and thereby, patta was granted to the said Palani. It is, thus, seen that the representation of the petition had been disposed of.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, claims that disposal of the said representation had been done without notice to the petitioner herein.

4. That is an issue which need not be examined today because to settle all the issues raised, the only appropriate forum is the competent civil court for addressing their grievance.

5. The representation made on behalf of the sixth respondent impleaded viz, Palani is that since an order has been passed in pursuance of the writ petition, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.

6. Section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act provides for a bar for the jurisdiction to the civil court to entertain any lis, however, in the proviso thereunder, it is stated that with respect to the dispute and title, the civil court alone has competency to examine such issues.

7. In view of the above, it would be appropriate that the parties are relegated to the competent civil court. In so far as the present writ petition is concerned, since an order has been passed on the representation dated 4.11.2019, it is suffice if the writ petition is dismissed leaving open the rights to the petitioner to agitate all the issues before the competent civil

court. Accordingly, it is dismissed. I am conscious that I have not gone into the disputes with respect to the lis between the parties. No order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssk To

1. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai.

4. The Tahsildar, Keelapennathur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai.

+2ccs to Mr.B.Janakiram, Advocate, S.R.No.39353 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.39738 W.P.NO.33492 OF 2019 PL(CO) PBS/02/09/2021