N. Muthuswamy vs The District Collector and Others

T. Raja, J.—The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to consider

the Petitioner''s representation dated 03.03.2008 and further representation dated 12.05.2008 and consequently direct the Respondents to allot

the lands in all measuring 7 acres comprised in Survey No. 45/4, 46/1 and 46/7 situated at V. Mamandur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram

District, in favour of the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has become absolute owner of the property comprised in Survey No.

47/1 by way of purchasing through a registered sale deed dated 15.02.2005 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chinna Salem as document No.

316 of 2005. Subsequent to the purchase of the said land, the other lands having an extent of 2.52 acres comprised in Survey No. 45/8, are also

under his occupation, as the said lands are owned by one Manimegalai, wife of the Petitioner. The Petitioner being the absolute owner of both the

lands, cultivating the said lands jointly. Further, there are certain Government lands adjacent to the Petitioner lands, but the said lands cannot be

accessed by anyone else without using the Petitioner''s lands. Therefore, the Petitioner has made a representation to the authorities seeking

issuance of patta. When the said representation pending for consideration, the Petitioner came to know that in respect of the Government lands

comprised in Survey Nos. 45/4, 46/1 and 46/7, patta have been issued to the Respondents 5 to 7. Since the Revenue Authorities have chosen to

give patta without any possession and enjoyment to the Respondents 5 to 7, when the Petitioner has already in occupation of he nearby lands, it

was contended that the issuance of patta by the Revenue Authorities in favour of the Respondents 5 to 7, are illegal and on that basis, prayed for

allowing the present writ petition.

In reply, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 5 to 7 submitted that when the case of the Petitioner itself shows that the lands, for

which the Petitioner has come to this Court, has been already given in favour of the Respondents 5 to 7 by way of issuing patta, the remedy lies for

the Petitioner before the Civil Court and not in the writ Court.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

When the Petitioner himself has admitted in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 45/4, 46/1

and 46/7 have already been given by way issuing patta in favour of Respondents 5 to 7, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the

Respondents, the Petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition seeking issuance of patta, unless and until the patta proceedings issued in

favour of the Respondents 5 to 7 are challenged before the competent Court after getting a Civil Court decree establishing the ownership and title

of the land in his favour.

Accordingly, this Court, finding no merit in the present writ petition, dismisses the same. No Costs.