High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 01 MAD CK 0048

A. Kanniappan vs The District Collector, The District Revenue Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Kancheepuram-3, The Thasildar and G. Adhikesavan

Madras High Court · Decided on 12 January 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vinod K. Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 15993 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 492 words

Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma

1.

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel

the patta bearing No. 2689, now standing in the name of the 4th respondent and to issue patta in the name of the petitioner with respect of the

property bearing old S. No. 286/1B New S.No.286/5B measuring about 1744 sq.ft. situated at Manimangalam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk,

Kancheepuram District. The case of the petitioner is that he is an ex-service man, who purchased 7,000 sq.ft. of land by way of registered Sale

Deed. The petitioner, in order to meet his family obligations sold 5256 sq.ft. out of the 7,000 sq.ft. by way of the registered Sale deed, and also

executed a power of attorney on 26.10.1992.

2.

On 04.01.2007, the petitioner cancelled the power of attorney after due notice to the attorney holder.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that inspite of the power of attorney having been cancelled, the attorney holder illegally sold the land in favour of one

T. Ethiraj. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the sale by the attorney holder, being without jurisdiction, filed a civil suit. The suit stands decreed.

The case of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the suit, the property was sold to the 4th respondent. The Tahsildar, on the basis of the

sale in favour of the 4th respondent, issued patta in the name of the 4th respondent.

4.

The petitioner claims that his application made to the Tahsildar for change of patta in terms of the Civil court decree, was declined by the

Tahsildar, on the ground that the remedy of the petitioner was to file an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passs Book Act, 1983.

5.

The petitioner, therefore, filed a representation dated 07.04.2010 to the Appellate Authority.

6.

The case of the petitioner is that inspite of representation having been filed, no action has been taken thereon.

7.

On consideration, I find that the petition is not competent. The petitioner has remedy of executing the Civil court decree, by filing an execution

and to seek for change of patta by filing application to the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. Instead of filing

representation, the petitioner was to file an appeal in accordance with law.

8.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not competent as in absence of filing of statutory appeal, no directions as prayed for can be issued.

9.

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner, to file a statutory appeal in accordance with law within fifteen days of receipt of certified copy of

this order. In case an appeal is filed, the authorities are directed to consider the same on merits, for the reason, that the prayer of the petitioner is to

enforce the civil court decree, which is binding on the revenue authorities.

No costs.