Madras High Court
P.Jebamani vs The District Revenue Officer on 9 December, 2010
Bench: R.Banumathi, R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 09/12/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Appeal (MD)No.864 of 2010 P.Jebamani ... Appellant vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2.The Sub Collector, Thoothukudi. 3.The Tahsildar, Thoothukudi. 4.L.Paadala Isakkimuthu ... Respondents Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 23.04.2010 in W.P.(MD)No.5625 of 2010. !For Appellant ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan ^For Respondents 1-3 ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Special Government Pleader. For 4th Respondent ... Mr.M.P.Senthil :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by Justice R.SUBBIAH) This appeal is filed as against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.5625 of 2010, dated 23.04.2010.
2.It is the contention of the appellant that he had purchased 63 cents of land out of total extent of 1 acre 7 cents from one Paripoornathammal in S.No.56/9, Servaikkaran Madam Village, Thoothukudi Taluk. The patta in respect of the said survey number stood in the names of three persons namely, 1)Lingam, son of Chelliah Nadar; 2)Shanmugavel Nadar, Son of Vel Nadar and 3)Piramiah Nadar, Son of Palavesamuthu Nadar. The vendor of the appellant is the wife of Piramiah Nadar. After the demise of Piramiah Nadar, the vendor of the appellant Paripoornathammal has become his surviving legal heir from whom, the land was purchased. After purchase, when the appellant approached the third respondent for issuance of separate patta in his name, the same was not considered by the third respondent. While the situation stood thus, one of the owners of land Shanmugavel Nadar, passed away leaving his son Kumaresan and the said Kumaresan was proceeded in a litigation. Subsequently his share in the property comprising in S.No.56/9 was sold in a court auction to one Fernando and consequently, the said Kumaresan ceased to have any interest any property. But the said Kumaresan without any title sold his share in favour of one Paadalamuthu representing his minor son. Similarly another co-owner one Lingam also passed away. Subsequently, there was a sub division of the property in S.No.56/9 and consequent to the sub division the name of Paadalamuthu and Piramiah Nadar figured in the revenue records. The appellant after purchasing the 63 cents of land from the wife of Piramiah Nadar approached the second respondent for the issuance of a separate patta. But the second respondent rejected the request of the appellant, by order dated 31.03.2004. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent by order dated 25.10.2005 confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Thereafter, the appellant filed a revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration. But subsequently, by a communication dated 17.09.2008, the revision petition was returned on the ground that the powers of the second respondent have been withdrawn from the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration and the petitioner was advised to approach the competent court of law for remedy. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of writ petition.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since he had purchased the land measuring 63.5 cents from one Paripoornathammal, wife of late Piramiah Nadar whose name figured in the revenue records, there cannot be any impediment in substituting his name and therefore, there is no need to approach the Civil Court in this case.
4.Opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the fourth respondent made his submissions.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6.Learned single Judge of this Court by relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court reported in 2007 (6) SCC (Suraj Bhan and others Vs.Financial Commissioner and others) and 1995 (1) MLJ 426 (Kuppuswami Nainar Vs.The District Revenue Officer and others), disposed of the writ petition on a finding that a person who had lost his remedy before the revenue authorities, has to seek appropriate remedy only before the Civil Court. In the instant case, the husband of the vendor was the co-owner of the property along with two other persons. The fourth respondent who had purchased the property from the other co- owner is opposing the prayer of the appellant, directing the respondents to effect corresponding mutation in the revenue records by entering the name of the writ petitioner in respect of the subject property. In our opinion, since disputed questions of fact are involved in this matter, the appropriate forum is only the Civil Court to decide the issue. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
sms To
1.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
2.The Sub Collector, Thoothukudi.
3.The Tahsildar, Thoothukudi