M.E.A.Mohamed Ali vs The District Revenue Officer on 16 March, 2005

[Cites 3, Cited by 13]

Madras High Court

M.E.A.Mohamed Ali vs The District Revenue Officer on 16 March, 2005

Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 (NOC) 452 (MAD), 2005 A I H C 2561, (2005) 35 ALLINDCAS 530 (MAD), (2005) 4 CTC 9 (MAD)

Bench: Markandey Katju

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           

DATE:16/3/2005  

CORAM   

THE HONOURABLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE                

AND  

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA            


W.A. No. 546 of 2005 


1. M.E.A.Mohamed Ali  
2. Ummul Marjan  
3. Katheen Syed Ali
4. Abdul Nafiu
5. Ulpath Niza
6. Zahir Hussain
7. Ujeethu Niza                                 PETITIONERS                          Appellants

-Vs-

1. The District Revenue Officer,
   Ramnad Collectorate,
   Ramanathapuram.  

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
   Ramnad Collectorate,
   Ramanathapuram.  

3. S.N.Mohamed Abdullah rep.  
   by Power Agent A.Mubarak Ali.                Respondents


        Prayer:  Appeal under clause 15 of  the  Letters  Patent  against  the
order of this Court made in W.P.No.12351 of 2001 dated 20.9.2004.

!For Appellants ::  Mr.V.Sitharanjandas

^For Respondents ::  Mr.D.Krishnakumar, 
                     Special Govt.  Pleader.


:JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice.) This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.9.2004

2. The dispute relates to entries in the revenue records. It is well settled that entries in the revenue records does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value vide M.T.W.Tenzing Namgyal & Ors. v. Motilal Lakhotia & Ors., JT 2003(5) SC 173, Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997)7 SCC 137 and Smt.Sawarni v. Smt.Inder Kaur and others, 1996(7) JT S.C. 580. Such entries are only for the purpose of payment of land revenue. Hence the parties aggrieved by such entries in the revenue records should get their rights adjudicated in a civil suit. Ordinarily writ petitions should not be entertained against orders for making entries in the revenue records, as such orders do not affect the rights of any one.

3. We make it clear that the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge does not create any right in favour of the parties in that case. We further make it clear that the order of the revenue authorities is not binding in the civil suit, and the civil court will decide the rights of the parties independently of the order of the revenue authority.

4. With the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed off. No costs. Consequently WAMP No.1017/2005 is closed.

16.3.2005 Index: Yes.

Internet: Yes.

ns.

1. The District Revenue Officer, Ramnad Collectorate, Ramanathapuram.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramnad Collectorate, Ramanathapuram.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court