N.Ravi v. The District Revenue Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and WMP Nos.31673, 31665 and 31668 of 2018 N.Ravi, 4/71,Thiruvalluvar Street, Vadakkupattu, Medavakkam, Chennai 600100.
Petitioner Vs
1. The District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.
2.The Sub Collector, Chengalput, Kanchipuram District.
3.The Tahsildar, Chengalput, Kanchipuram District.
4.J.Benjamin, 6,V.S.V.Mani Nagar, Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060 Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders made in Na.Ka.No.3515/2018/N4 dated 1/9
9.8.2018 passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order made in Na.Ka.No.1314/2012/Aa dated 18.12.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restore mutation entries in the petitioners name and protect his right to property from the hands of the 4th respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar (for R1 to R3) Government Advocate.
Ms.Ummer Ruman (for R4) for Mr.D.Bennington
O R D E R
This Writ petition has been preferred as against the order passed by the 1st respondent, thereby dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner as against the order passed by the 2nd respondent, thereby cancelling the subdivision and issuance of patta in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.156/3, situated at Guduvancherry Village, Kancheepuram District.
2. The petitioner purchased Plot Nos.12 and 13 by registered sale deeds dated 24.12.2009 vide document Nos.6978/2009 and 6977/ 2009, respectively. After purchasing the plots, the petitioner applied for mutation of revenue records and also for separate patta. After effecting sub-division, as per the sale deeds, the petitioner was issued patta in respect of these two 2/9
plots.
3. The father of the 4th respondent also had purchased a house site bearing No.15A by a registered sale deed dated 31.08.1968. As per the approved layout, the plots 12 to 15 are situated adjacently. The father of the 4th respondent subsequently died, leaving behind five legal heirs. Four legal heirs had executed Release Deeds in favour of the 4th respondent and he is the absolute owner of Plot No.15A.
4. While being so, the petitioner had filed a suit for bare injunction in OS No.84 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet, as against the 4th respondent for permanent injunction, alleging that the 4th respondent is interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plot No.13.
5. Pendency of the said suit, the 4th respondent filed a petition before the 2nd respondent challenging the issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot No.13. All the lands are comprised in Survey SF No.89/156 of Guduvancherry Village, Kancheepuram District. The 3/9
entire layout was an unapproved one. As per the records, Plot Nos.12 to 15 are located in the land comprised in S.Nos.89/1 and 156/3. After the purchase of respective plots, there was a wrong sub-division and issuance of patta and therefore, the 4th respondent filed a petition challenging the sub-division as well as the issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner. After a detailed enquiry, the 2nd respondent found that the sub-division as well as the issuance of patta to the respective purchasers were wrong and accordingly, cancelled the same. Now, the 3rd respondent has to conduct a fresh enquiry and after perusal of the layout plan, sale deeds and parent documents, sub-divide and issue a patta to the respective plot owners.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the 2nd respondent was challenged by the petitioner before the 1st respondent and the same was also dismissed, thereby confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that after 10 years, the 4th respondent, without valid reasons, has simply challenged the patta issued in favour of the petitioner, however, it was allowed and the same was also confirmed by the 1st respondent.
4/9
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that both the plots purchased by the petitioner and the 4th respondent's father are not adjacent to each other. Both are located in two survey numbers, viz., 89/1 and 156/3 situated at Guduvancherry, Kancheepuram District. Therefore, there is absolutely no dispute for the issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
9. On perusal of the records, the 2nd respondent had not only cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner but had cancelled the entire subdivision and pattas assigned in favour of the respective purchasers of the respective plots. It is also seen that there are identity issues in respect of the respective plots purchased by the petitioner and the father of the 4th respondent.
10. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to survey the subject 5/9
property as per their respective sale deeds, layout plan and parent documents and thereafter, sub-divide the subject property as per their respective sale deeds and issue patta as per the sub-division to the respective plot owners. It is also made clear that all the parties shall be given an opportunity of hearing before passing the order. The entire proceedings shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that the 3rd respondent is directed to pass orders in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made by respondents 1 and 2 herein.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 01.09.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No ars To
1. The District Revenue Officer, 6/9
Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.
2.The Sub Collector, Chengalput, Kanchipuram District.
3.The Tahsildar, Chengalput, Kanchipuram District.
7/9
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ars 8/9
01.09.2025 9/9