Madras High Court
R.S.Srinivasan vs The District Collector on 30 January, 2024
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
W.P(MD)No.700 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Writ Petition (MD)No.700 of 2023
R.S.Srinivasan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Collectorate,
Madurai – 625 020.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Melur – 625 106.
3.The Tahsildar,
Madurai East Taluk,
Collectorate,
Madurai – 625 020.
4.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Office of Tahsildar,
Madurai East Taluk,
Collectorate,
Madurai – 625 020.
... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.700 of 2023
PRAYER:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the
respondents to issue the appropriate Revenue Patta in the name of the
petitioner in respect to the land bearing Old Survey No.220/1 corresponding
to R.S.No.220/5 to an extent of 60 cents out of 1 Acre and 30 Cents in
Narasingam Village presently Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District on the
basis of the proceedings dated 23.02.1962 passed in R.P. 11-2MI-62 on the
file of the Settlement Officer Party - II Madurai by considering the
application dated 14.06.2020 made to the first respondent herein within a
time frame as may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Jessi Jeeva Priya
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhi Raj
Special Govt. Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to issue the appropriate Revenue Patta in the name of the petitioner in respect to the land bearing Old Survey No.220/1 corresponding to R.S.No.220/5 to an extent of 60 cents out of 1 Acre and 30 Cents in Narasingam Village, presently, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District on the basis of the proceedings, dated 23.02.1962 passed in R.P. 11-2MI-62 on the file of the Settlement Officer Party - II Madurai by 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.700 of 2023 considering the application dated 14.06.2020 made to the first respondent within the stipulated time.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. According to the petitioner, the subject matter lands originally belonged to one C.A.Subramania Iyer. From him, his grandfather Ramasamy Josier purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 23.01.1918. After his demise, the petitioner's father was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. In fact, there was a revenue patta dated 09.06.1941 standing in the name of the original vendor C.A.Subramania Iyer and also the lands were subjected to the partition amongst the family members, under the partition deeds dated 30.03.1942 and 17.06.1946. The said land was covered under the proceedings of the Reforms Legislation and in respect to the same, there had been a dispute with one A.R.M.Nagendra Iyer, whose name, had been entered, as a joint holder, along with the name of the petitioner's father, R.S.Seshalyer. Ultimately, the same came to an end, in the enquiry conducted by the 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.700 of 2023 settlement officer, dealing with the power to issue the Ryotwari Patta while considering the Review Petition, when he directed to issue the Ryotwari Patta in the name of the petitioner's father in respect of a land to an extent of 60 cents by his proceedings in R.P.11-2MI-62 dated 23.02.1962. The further orders issuing Ryotwari patta had not been issued by the appropriate authorities. Consequently, there is no revenue patta issued by the respondents for the reason that the title to the said disputed property is fully covered by the ancient registered documents. However, the possession of the said property by the petitioner's father was in peaceful and continuous possession and after his life time, his legal heirs were in enjoyment of the same. However, a dispute arose with the same branch of the said Nagendra Iyer, who claimed the said right earlier, but in the form of one Appiah Nagendra Iyer Anna Samarathanai Nagar Poojai Kattalai attached to Arulmighu Kalamega Perumal Koil, and another by name, S.Martin. A suit in O.S.No.400 of 1996 has been filed before the District Munsif of Madurai Taluk for possession by the petitioner. The said suit came to be dismissed by a Judgment dated 30.01.2014. As against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2016, on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. However, the said appeal was dismissed for default, since the 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.700 of 2023 counsel on record died pending appeal and new counsel has not conducted the case effectively. The application to set aside the order of default and to restore the appeal is yet to be numbered by the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. In the absence of the revenue patta or ryotwari patta, the trial Court hesitated to decree the suit. In the above said circumstances, as early as on 28.02.2020, the petitioner has filed an application before the first respondent for the grant of the revenue patta. However, the first respondent was not inclined to grant it on the ground that the relevant documents were not available in his office, and the same was informed to him by the proceedings dated 31.03.2020. Hence, he applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, by letters dated 23.06.2020 and 13.07.2020. In the meantime, the application made by the petitioner to the first respondent on 14.06.2020 was responded by the first respondent, by forwarding it to the third respondent, by his memo dated 30.06.2020. Though the petitioner attended the enquiry before the Village Administrative Officer, pursuant to his letter dated 10.09.2020, still, nothing has turned out thereafter.
5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.700 of 2023
4. According to the petitioner, when the rights of the petitioner's father came to be crystalized pursuant to the orders passed by the competent authority in a Revision Petition, the petitioner is not able to enjoy his right. The original order had been forwarded by the petitioner's father for appropriate action to the officials, however, he has not taken a photocopy of it. Finally, the petitioner sent a representation dated 14.06.2020, however, which is also pending. Hence, he has filed present writ petition seeking the above said relief.
5. According to the respondents, they cannot issue patta when a civil suit is pending. After getting the appropriate orders from the competent civil Court, they can mutate the patta.
6. Whereas, according to the petitioner, on 07.07.2022, a report has been submitted by the third respondent/Tahsildar. In the said report, it has been stated that an enquiry was conducted and there is no information as to how in the joint patta, the name of Sanakaraman S/o Xavier, Srinivasan S/o Xavier and Nagendra Iyer S/o Ramasamy Iyer were included. The third respondent has further stated that he could not find that it is a mistake 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.700 of 2023 committed in the Ryotwati scheme. According to the third respondent, after considering all the documents, it is seen that the boundaries are different from which has been claimed by the respondent and the petitioner. Accordingly, Nagendra Iyer S/o Ramasamy Iyer has not purchased any extent of the land in S.No.220/5.
7. It is seen that an enquiry has been conducted and accordingly, recommendation in Na.Ka.No.2781/2020/E3 dated 07.07.2022 was made by the third respondent/Tahildhar to the District Revenue Officer by stating that some error has been committed in the joint patta. Therefore, the issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the patta, has to be decided by the authorities, based on the said recommendation dated 07.07.2022 sent by the third respondent/Tahsildhar.
8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's claim based on the recommendation in Na.Ka.No. 2781/2020/E3 dated 07.07.2022 on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the interested parties, if any, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.700 of 2023
9. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
30.01.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
skn
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Collectorate,
Madurai – 625 020.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Melur – 625 106.
3.The Tahsildar,
Madurai East Taluk,
Collectorate,
Madurai – 625 020.
4.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Office of Tahsildar,
Madurai East Taluk,
Collectorate,
Madurai – 625 020.
8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.700 of 2023
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
skn
Writ Petition (MD)No.700 of 2022
30.01.2024
9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis