Villi v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI W.P.(MD)No.9732 of 2025:- Villi ... Petitioner vs.
1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officr, Melur, Madurai District.
4.The District Registrar, Madurai District, Madurai.
5.The Sub-Registrar Karungalakudi, Madurai District.
6.The Tahsildar Melur Taluk, Madurai District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 6th respondent to 1/7
restore the petitioner's name in the patta in relation to S.Nos.368/5 to an extent of 2 acres 10 cents and S.No.367 to an extent of 82 cents, both situated at Ayyapatti Village Group, Melur Taluk, Madurai District and further direct the 5th respondent to allow registration of any document pertaining to the petitioner's lands, without creating any hindrance or objection to the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.10904/2010/K dated 22.11.2010. W.P.(MD)No.9733 of 2025:- Ilamozhi ... Petitioner vs.
1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officr, Melur, Madurai District.
4.The District Registrar, Madurai District, Madurai.
5.The Sub-Registrar Karungalakudi, Madurai District.
6.The Tahsildar Melur Taluk, Madurai District.
... Respondents 2/7
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 6th respondent to restore the petitioner's name in the patta in relation to S.Nos.386/7 to an extent of 54 cents and S.No.380/2 to an extent of 41 cents, both situated at Ayyapatti Village Group, Melur Taluk, Madurai District and further direct the 5th respondent to allow registration of any document pertaining to the petitioner's lands, without creating any hindrance or objection to the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.10904/2010/K dated 22.11.2010.
For Petitioner :Mr.V.Kannan For Respondents :Mrs.K.Malathi Additional Government Pleader (In both cases) ***** COMMON ORDER Heard Mr.V.Kannan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs.K.Malathi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2.The grievance of the petitioners is that despite proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.10904/2010/K, dated 22.11.2010, directing restoration of patta in the land owners' names pertaining to the lands in 3/7
various survey numbers, the respondents are not implementing the said order of the second respondent.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.16737 of 2019, where, this Court in an identical matter in relation to the lands originally being classified as "Panjami lands" and subsequently, the Revenue Divisional Officer recalling the said classification in and by the very same proceedings, dated 22.11.2010, directed registration of document to go ahead before the Sub Registrar concerned. The impugned order/refusal check slip in the said Writ Petition, was dated 14.05.2019. 4.In the present case, the petitioner merely seeks for restoration of patta in his name by implementing the order of the second respondent, 22.11.2010. I do not find that the said order of the second respondent, dated 22.11.2010, being modified or recalled or set aside subsequently and therefore, the same is in force and binding on the revenue officials subordinate to Revenue Divisional Officer.
4/7
5.In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the sixth respondent is directed to pass orders on the petitioners' application for restoration of patta in their names in respect of S.Nos.368/5 and 367 and S.Nos.386/7 and 380/2 respectively, on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.I do not find any requests by the petitioners for registration of documents. Therefore, the second part of the prayer in the Writ Petitions regarding registration of documents is premature and therefore, the said relief cannot be granted. However, it is open to the petitioners, in the event of contemplating any registration, to place reliance on the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.16737 of 2019, dated 19.03.2025. No costs. Index :Yes / No 15.04.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr 5/7
To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officr, Melur, Madurai District.
4.The District Registrar, Madurai District, Madurai.
5.The Sub-Registar Karungalakudi, Madurai District.
6.The Tahsildar Melur Taluk, Madurai District.
6/7
P.B.BALAJI, J.
cmr 15.04.2025 7/7