Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 311 (MAD)

N. Muthukumar v. District Revenue Officer

2023-01-25

R.SURESH KUMAR

body2023
ORDER : Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent herein pertaining to cancellation of UDR Patta standing in the name of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 12.05.2021 bearing Na.Ka.No.5703/2020/E1 and quash the same. The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent herein pertaining to cancellation of UDR Patta standing in the name of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 12.05.2021 bearing Na.Ka.No.5703/2020/E1 and quash the same. 2. That the property Punja land to the extent of 16.08 acres at S.No.285/1 at Mopperipalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District is the subject matter. The said property originally belonged to one Palani Gounder, who settled a Will in favour of the respondents 4 and 5 in 1967 for 1/3rd of the said property i.e., around 5.36 acres. Insofar as the remaining 2/3rd of the property is concerned, the petitioner's predecessor-in-title purchased the said 1/3rd of the property from whom the petitioner sometime in the year 2013, purchased the property. Therefore, he claims right over the 1/3rd of the entire stretch ie., 5.36 acres. 3. Insofar as the 5.36 acres being the 1/3rd of the property purchased by the petitioner, he was able to get a sub division patta of the property concerned in S.No.285/1A and 285/1B. 4. That kind of subdivision made by the revenue authorities was challenged by the private respondents before the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, who after having heard both sides, passed an order on 12.05.2021, whereby he has allowed the prayer sought for by the private respondents and passed the following order. 5. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. 6. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Murugendran learned counsel for the private respondents and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 7. 5. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. 6. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Murugendran learned counsel for the private respondents and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 7. It is the claim of the private respondents that 1/3rd of the property has been bequeathed by way of a Will by Palani Gounder in favour of the private respondents and if out of the remaining land, 1/3rd of the property is purchased by the petitioner from the predecessor-in-title who in turn would have purchased the same from Palani Gounder group, he would be entitled for 5.36 acres and insofar as the boundaries for the 5.36 acres said to have been purchased by the petitioner, there has been no boundaries earmarked in favour of the said land allotted to the private respondents. 8. However, this factor has been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he would submit that the boundary in respect of his portion ie., 5.36 acres he purchased that has been demarcated and that is the reason why the revenue department had subdivided the property into two S.Nos.285/A and 285/B and accordingly patta was issued. 9. When that being the position, the present order passed by the District Revenue Officer dated 12.05.2021 cancelling the subdivision made already and directing to issue joint patta in the name of the petitioner as well as private respondents is infirm according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. However, supporting the said order, the learned Special Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the private respondents would contend that, since the boundaries have not been earmarked as to which 1/3rd of the property has been purchased by the petitioner or which portion has been settled in favour of the private respondents, it is for these two people to sit up and to decide by mutually agreeing as to which portion has to be allotted to whom without prejudice to the rights of each other. 11. Hence the order passed by the District Revenue Officer which is impugned herein according to the learned counsel for the private respondents is to be sustained and the private respondents are ready and willing to negotiate with the petitioner to demarcate the boundaries for the proper utilization of the respective lands allotted to them. 12. 11. Hence the order passed by the District Revenue Officer which is impugned herein according to the learned counsel for the private respondents is to be sustained and the private respondents are ready and willing to negotiate with the petitioner to demarcate the boundaries for the proper utilization of the respective lands allotted to them. 12. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record. 13. If at all 1/3rd of the property ie., total extent of 16.08 acres at S.No.285/1 Moppiripalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District already been settled in favour of the private respondents and another 1/3rd of the property has been purchased by the petitioner unless the boundaries are clearly demarcated the sub division ought not to have been made. 14. In this context, it is to be noted that the portion of the property seems to have been claimed by the petitioner based on which sub division has been made. For this again, the rear portion of the property if at all to be given to the private respondents or any other third party in respect of the other 1/3rd portion of the property, the utility value will be very low and it will be very difficult for them to have a direct access to their respective portions. 15. Therefore, there is every justification on the part of the District Revenue Officer to set aside the sub division made in this regard. However, the District Revenue Officer has directed the parties to go for some agreement. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court feels that such kind of agreement may not be possible, as the petitioner is of the view that the four boundaries in respect of his property has been earmarked based on which only the sub division patta has been issued. Therefore, that ought not to have been cancelled by the orders of the District Revenue Officer, which is impugned herein. 16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court feels that instead of directing the petitioners to go for some agreement, both the parties can be relegated to go before the civil court. Therefore, that ought not to have been cancelled by the orders of the District Revenue Officer, which is impugned herein. 16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court feels that instead of directing the petitioners to go for some agreement, both the parties can be relegated to go before the civil court. They can file a suit to get declaration as to the four boundaries of their respective properties ie., 1/3rd portion belongs to the petitioner and 1/3rd portion belongs to the private respondents then only the sub division would be possible and till such time the subdivision already been made even though has been set aside by the orders of the District Revenue Officer, the same need not be acted upon and to that extent, this Court feels that the impugned order would not stand in the way for approaching the civil court by the parties concerned. 17. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order. ? That the impugned order in Na.Ka.5703/2020/E1 datd 12.05.2021 shall be kept in abeyance till both parties or either of the parties approach the civil court and get a declaration decree from the civil court. ? It is for the petitioner or for the private respondents to approach the civil court to file proper civil suit where they can seek for appropriate relief to demarcate the boundaries of their respective portion of the property. ? Till the civil suit is decided one way or the other, as an interim arrangement made during the pendency of the civil suit at the instance of either of the party, the properties said to have been purchased by the petitioner or claimed to have been purchased by the petitioner shall not be encumbered by the petitioner and no permanent structure shall be put up by the petitioner in the said 1/3rd portion of the property said to have been allotted to the petitioner. 18. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.