Madras High Court
P.Saseetharan vs The District Revenue Officer on 23 September, 2024
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T.Asha
W.P.(MD) No.22633 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.22633 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)No.19172 of 2024
P.Saseetharan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
District Revenue Office,
Theni District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
3.The Tahsildar
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District.
4.K.Malliha
5.K.Muthujayakumar .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
_________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22633 of 2024
records of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent herein in his
proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.1812/2016/D4 dated 21.06.2021 and quash
the same as illegal further directing the respondents herein to consider
the petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2023 and mutate the patta in
his name with respect to S.Nos.284/2, 278/6. 278/5 in
Aanaimalaiyanpatti @ Mallingapuram Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District, within a time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nallathambi
For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.S.Neduncheziyan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.1812/2016/D4 dated 21.06.2021 and quash the same as illegal and further directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2023 and mutate the patta in his name with respect to S.Nos.284/2, 278/6. 278/5 in Aanaimalaiyanpatti @ Mallingapuram Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.
_________ Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22633 of 2024
2.To appreciate the claim of the petitioner it would be necessary to bring to light the facts that have been set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.
3.It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid properties belonged to the petitioner's grandfather Mallaiyasamy, who died intestate leaving behind his legal heirs Muthusamy Gowder and Pandiyan. The legal heirs of the said Mallaiyasamy had entered into a registered partition deed, dated 24.10.1975, in and by which, 'B' schedule was allotted to the petitioner's father Pandian and 'A' schedule was allotted to the legal heirs of late Muthusamy Gowder, the petitioner's father's brother. The property comprised in S.No.284/2 measuring an extent of 4.38 acres was exclusively allotted to the petitioner's father's share. The other two S.Nos.278/5 and 278/6 were equally partitioned between the petitioner's father and the legal representatives of the petitioner's paternal uncle Muthusamy Gowder. The share to the petitioner's father has been described as item Nos.5 and 6 in 'B' schedule property. _________ Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22633 of 2024
4.The petitioner's father was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties comprised in S.No.284/2 measuring an extent of 3.38 acres, S.No.278/5 measuring an extent of 88 ½ cents out of 1.77 acres and S.No.278/6 to an extent of 1.74 ½ acres out of 3.49 acres. Subsequently, the petitioner's father and his two brothers viz., Thangaraj and Prabhakaran had executed a relinquishment deed dated 27.06.1981, 20.05.1982 and 14.05.1987 respectively, in respect of the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had became the exclusive owner and was in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land. The petitioner would state that originally the property in S.No. 284/2 measured an extent of 4.48 acres, out of which, 1 acre had been given to the Government as Boomidhan land by proceedings in Na.ka.No.5560/06/1C dated 02.08.2007.
5.Though the land in S.No.284/2A was allotted in favour of the petitioner's father, the UDR extract reflects the name of Kulasekaran and others with respect to S.No.284/2A to an extent of 1.37 hectacres. Further, S.No.278/5A was allotted to one Lakshmi and S.No.278/5B was _________ Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22633 of 2024 allotted to Kulasekaran, 278/6A was allotted in favour of the petitioner and 278/6B has been allotted in favour of M.Kulasekaran, which clearly shows that the said Kulasekaran had created bogus document. On 15.02.2007 the said Kulasekaran made an application before the third respondent claiming to issue a separate patta in various survey numbers. The petitioner has also submitted a petition against the said Kulasekaran before the Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell. The petitioner on coming to know about the inclusion of false patta granted in the name of the said Kulasekaran, filed an application before the second respondent to cancel the patta issued in favour of the said Kulasekaran. The said Kulasekaran appeared for enquiry on 06.07.2015 and expressed his consent for cancellation of patta. Pursuant to that, the second respondent by order dated 20.10.2015, cancelled the patta standing in the name of Kulasekaran and others and set aside the subdivision made by the third respondent.
6.The said Kulasekaran challenged the order passed by the first respondent by filing a revision on 11.01.2016, before the first respondent _________ Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22633 of 2024 wherein he had made a reference to the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2009 filed by one Dhanapathy against Kulasekaran and others for partition and demarcation of the suit schedule property. The first respondent, on receipt of this revision petition, has proceeded to pass the impugned order directing the petitioner to wait the out come of the civil litigation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the first respondent on the ground that the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2009 does not in any way relevant to the property belonging to the petitioner and the property therein and title. Therefore, he has come forward with the above writ petition.
7.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
8.The impugned order has been passed solely on the ground that the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2009 is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam, in respect of the very same property. However, a perusal of the schedule given in the suit and the property that has been allotted to the petitioner's father under a registered partition _________ Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22633 of 2024 would clearly show that both the properties are different. The property comprised in S.No.284/2 does not features in the schedule of properties given in the suit. That apart, the property in S.No.278/5 has been described as measuring an extent of 1 acre 77 cents and the northern, eastern and western boundaries are described as the petitioners property likewise 278/6 is described with an extent of 3 acre and 49 cents and S.No.278/5 is described with an extent of 1 acre 77 cents. This would clearly show that the property of the petitioner is no way connected with the suit property. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from a non- application of mind. The first respondent also overlooked the fact that the second respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, had passed the order dated 20.10.2015 and he has stated as follows:
vdnt kDjhuh; kw;Wk; vjph; kDjhuh;fs; mspj;Js;s xg;g[jy; thf;FK:yj;ij Vw;W Mizkiyahd;gl;o fpuhkk; g[y vz;fs; 284/2A kw;Wk; 278/6 Vh;]; epyk; cj;jkghisak; tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyf nfhg;g[ vz;:TK8A/245/1416 ehs;:
10.04.2007 d;go g[y vz;.284/2A vd;gJ 284/2A1, 2A2, 2A3 vdt[k; 278/6 vd;gJ 278/6A 68 vd cg;gphpt[ bra;ag;gl;lija[k; g[y vz;.278/5 vd;gJ 278/5A 5B vdt[k; cl;gphpt[ bra;J fpuhk fzf;Ffspy;
gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sija[k; uj;J bra;J ,jd; K:yk; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.
_________ Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22633 of 2024 Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.06.2021 passed in Mu.Mu.No. 1812/2016/D4, by the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent, who shall consider the documents which have been produced on either side, after issuing notice to both the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 and thereafter proceed to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
23.09.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Ns To
1.The Tahsildhar, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District.
2.The Town Surveyor, Kulithalai Municipality, Kulithalai Municipality Office, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District.
_________ Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22633 of 2024 _________ Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.22633 of 2024 P.T.ASHA, J.
Ns W.P.(MD) No.22633 of 2024 Dated: 23.09.2024 _________ Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis