Narayanan Chettiar Trust v. The District Revenue Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and W.M.P(MD)Nos.8449 and 8450 of 2024 Narayanan Chettiar Trust, Represented by its Managing Trustee, T.Narayanan ... Petitioner vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District.
4.Sulthana 5.Suraiya Sulthana 6.Kousiya Sulthana 1/7
7.K.Anish Saththar, Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thiruparankundram Madurai District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent under Na.Ka.No. 8662/2014/F1, dated 13.03.2024 and quash the same as illegal and quash the same and consequently relegate the respondents 4 to 6 to approach the civil Court to establish their title.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.RR.Kannan for R4 R5 & R6-Expired No Appearance for R7
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the third respondent in and by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8662/2014/F1, dated 13.03.2024.
2/7
2.Heard Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.RR.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
3.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent brings to my notice that the respondents 5 and 6 are no more.
4.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not pressing the writ petition against the respondents 5 and 6 and it would be suffice to hear the writ petition in the presence of the fourth respondent. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would take me through the impugned order and the findings rendered by the third respondent placing reliance on the order of the first respondent/District Revenue Officer on 25.09.2024 in Ni.Mu.No.41269/11(G5) and would contend that when the District Revenue Officer had given a categorical finding that the petitioners therein, who are the respondents 4 to 7 in the present writ petition, had failed to establish their 3/7
right to the subject lands and therefore, in and by the impugned proceedings, the third respondent ought not to have directed mutation of patta in the names of the private individuals.
6.However, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that the respondents have produced documents in support of their claim for title, right from 1887 onwards and the third respondent has considered all those documents and further, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent in and by the impugned order has not directed patta to be issued to the private respondents but only restoration of the names as found before the UDR settlement. He would, therefore, submit that it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court to establish title and it is not necessary for the private respondents to file a suit and establish title, which was also not a direction issued by the third respondent.
7.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the impugned order passed by the third respondent is a well reasoned order, after considering all the documents produced by the rival 4/7
parties and the same does not require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8.I have paid my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
9.On going through the impugned order, I find that the third respondent has apparently referred to a finding of the District Revenue Officer to order mutation of patta in the name of Gulam Mohammed Ravuthar in respect of 91 cents comprised in S.No.151/7 and in respect of S.No.151/8 measuring 1 acre and 17 cents alone. The third respondent has directed the patta to be restored in the names of three persons, namely, Mangaiyan Ambalam, Veeranan Ambalam and Nallpuliyan Ambalam, as it stood prior to the UDR settlement. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on going through the order of the first respondent, I do not find any such finding or direction issued to mutate patta in respect of S.No.151/7. In fact, there is a specific finding that the claim to right in S.No.151/7 has not been satisfactorily established. Therefore, such a finding arrived at by the third respondent is clearly erroneous and the said finding 5/7
is necessarily required to be set aside by this Court. It shall be open to the petitioner and, if necessary, the private respondents to approach the competent civil Court to to establish their title and thereafter, seek for mutation of revenue records in their respective names.
10.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 28.02.2025 sji NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District.
6/7
P.B.BALAJI , J.
sji 28.02.2025 7/7