P.Kalimuthu v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.11.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN WP(MD)No.24922 of 2023 and WMP(MD)No.21095 & 21097 of 2023 P.Kalimuthu ... Petitioner v.

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Tiruchirappalli.

3.The District Revenue Officer & Additional District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli. 4.The Principal Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chennai.

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli. 6.The Tahsildar, Thiruvarumbur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

7.Varusai Rowther Chatram and Thaneer Pandal Wakf, Rep.by its Mutavalli K.Mohamed Rafeek No.6, Varusai Rowther Pettai, Meleputhur, Trichy - 620 001.

... Respondents (R7 was described vide court order dated 30.10.2023) 1/5

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent to grant patta in the name of the petitioner for the land assigned to him by the second respondent in Pappakurichi Village S.F No.198/1, measuring one acre 50 cents in Thiruvarumbur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate for R1 to R3 and R5 and R6 Mr.D.Haroon Rashid for R4 Mr.M.Saravanan for R7

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The petitioner challenges the order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Trichy. By the impugned order, patta has been ordered to be mutated in favour of the seventh respondent. The petitioner has questioned the same on the footing that the property had been assigned in his favour. But the assignment was set aside by the government in the year 1982 itself. The title of the seventh respondent over the petition - mentioned 2/5

property had been declared in civil proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order is a mere consequential step taken by the District Revenue Officer, Trichirappalli. The petitioner lacks the locus standi to even challenge the same. If the petitioner has any claim against the seventh respondent, it is for him to work out his rights before the jurisdictional civil court. The writ court cannot grant any relief. In any event, the impugned order cannot be challenged by the petitioner.

3.This writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

06.11.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Skm To 1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Tiruchirappalli. 3.The District Revenue Officer & Additional District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli.

4.The Principal Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chennai. 5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli. 3/5

6.The Tahsildar, Thiruvarumbur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. 7.Varusai Rowther Chatram and Thaneer Pandal Wakf, Rep.by its Mutavalli K.Mohamed Rafeek, No.6, Varusai Rowther Pettai, Meleputhur, Trichy - 620 001.

4/5

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

SKM WP(MD)No.24922 of 2023 and WMP(MD)No.21095 & 21097 of 2023 06.11.2023 5/5