Madras High Court
G.Arunagirinathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 August, 2010
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.08.2010
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.No.1663 of 2010 &
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009
G.Arunagirinathan ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Perambalur District
Perambalur.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Perambalur District
Perambalur.
3. The Thasildar
Perambalur District
Perambalur.
4. S.Rajamathi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the impugned order of the first impugned order passed by the second respondent in vide na.ka.no.A4/2737/2008 dated 16.04.2009 and impugned order passed by the first respondent order in na.ka.B2/11544/2008, dated 06.11.2009 and quash the same consequently direct the first respondent to correct the mistaken entry of the petitioner land in S.No146/6A, admeasuring 2.34 acres under UDR scheme on the recommendation of the third respondent's report dated 29.05.2008 to issue patta in the name of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Arunkumar
For Respondents 1-3 : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan
Government Advocate
For Respondent 4 : Mr.K.N.Nataraaj
O R D E R
The petitioner states that he is in possession of 2.34 acres in S.No.146/6A in North Perambalur Village, Perambalur Taluk and District.
2. According to the petitioner, S.No.146/6A was a sub division made from S.No.146/6. The other sub-division was S.No.146/6B. Before sub-division, S.No.146/6 comprised 2.90 acres and a joint patta No.1629 was issued to the petitioner's ancestors viz., P.Pachamuthu Mudaliar and one M.Sundara Mudaliar in the year 1964.
3. In this writ petition, we are concerned only with S.No.146/6A measuring 2.34 acres and we are not concerned with S.No.146/6B measuring 0.56 acres.
4. Before sub-division, there was a joint patta No.1629. After sub-division, patta No.1357 was assigned to the land relating to S.No.146/6A and patta No.1675 was assigned to the land relating to S.No.146/6B.
5. When sub-division took place, Pachamuthu Mudaliar was in possession of 2.34 acres in S.No.146/6A and Sundara Mudaliar was in possession of 0.56 acres in S.No.146/6B.
6. After the demise of Pachamuthu Mudaliar, his wife Annalakshmi Ammal was assigned the patta No.1357. It is not in dispute that patta No.1357 was issued to Annalakshmi Ammal relating to the land in S.No.146/6A.
7. Before Up Dating Registry (in short "UDR") took place during the year 1989, patta No.1357 stood in the name of Annalakshmi Ammal relating to the land in S.No.146/6A. While UDR took place, S.No.146/6A was sub-divided into S.No.146/6A1 and S.No.146/6A2. S.No.146/6A1 relates to 1.26 acres and S.No.146/6A2 relates to 1.08 acres. Patta No.1357 relates to the land in S.No.146/6A1.
8. In the mean time, Annalakshmi Ammal died in the year 2002 leaving behind her only legal-heir Muthammal, who is the mother of the petitioner. When, Muthammal sought to transfer the patta that stood in the name of her mother-Annalakshmi Ammal, in the year 2007, she found that patta No.1357 was originally related to S.No.146/6A prior to UDR and after UDR, it was sub-divided, without prior notice to her and the land measuring 1.08 acres was sub-divided as S.No.146/6A2 and a new patta No.1560 was assigned thereto. After UDR, patta No.1357 relates to S.No.146/6A1 measuring only 1.26 acres.
9. In these circumstances, the petitioner's mother-Muthammal made a representation dated 12.01.2008 to the third respondent-Thasildar, Perambalur Taluk, to rectify the mistake done in the UDR, since the mistake took place by sub-dividing S.No.146/6A as S.No.146/6A1 and S.No.146/6A2 and patta relates to S.No.146/6A2 was assigned to one Somanadha Mudaliar, without notice to Annalakshmi Ammal.
10. The third respondent-Thasildar, Perambalur Taluk, conducted an enquiry and he visited the spot by himself. He also got a report from the concerned Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector. Based on the reports given by the Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector and also based on his spot inspection, the third respondent-Thasildar, passed an order dated 29.05.2008, holding that S.No.146/6A2 was an error in UDR and transferring the patta relating to land in S.No.146/6A2 in the name of Muthammal, as the patta stood in the name of the mother of Muthammal, before UDR.
11. It is found that the fourth respondent-Rajamathi was allotted a share by way of partition the land in S.No.146/6A2 by Somanadha Mudaliar, as the fourth respondent is one of the sons of the Somanadha Mudaliar. Based on the partition, that took place after UDR, the patta was transferred from Somanadha Mudaliar to the fourth respondent relating to S.No.146/6A2. That is, the patta No.1560 was transferred from Somanadha Mudaliar to the fourth respondent.
12. Aggrieved over the order of the third-respondent Thasildar, dated 29.05.2008, the fourth respondent-Rajamathi filed an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent allowed the appeal, by an order dated 16.04.2009.
13. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the order passed by the second respondent dated 16.04.2009, as the same was not intimated to him. It is the specific pleading made in the writ petition.
14. In these circumstances, the petitioner's mother made a representation dated 21.01.2008 to various authorities including the first respondent herein to correct the error in UDR.
15. The petitioner's mother also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7230 of 2009, seeking for a direction to the second respondent therein to dispose of the representation dated 21.01.2008 made by the petitioner for change of patta in respect of the property comprised in S.No.146/6A2 0.44.0 hectares situated at Perambalur Village, Taluk and District. This Court, disposed the writ petition in W.P.No.7230 of 2009 on 21.04.2009 directing the first respondent herein to dispose the representation dated 21.01.2008 made by the petitioner therein within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
16. In these circumstances, the first respondent passed an order dated 06.11.2009 confirming the order of the second respondent.
17. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 16.04.2009 of the second respondent and 06.11.2009 of the first respondent and also for a consequential direction to the first respondent to correct the mistaken entry of the petitioner's land in S.No146/6A, measuring 2.34 acres under UDR scheme based on the recommendation of the third respondent's report dated 29.05.2008 and to issue patta to the petitioner.
18. Notice of motion was ordered on 19.04.2010.
19. Heard Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.K.N.Nataraaj, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
20. The learned Government Advocate has made her submissions based on records. The fourth respondent has filed counter affidavit.
21. On merits, it is an undisputed fact that before UDR, the patta No.1357 stood in the name of Annalakshmi Ammal, who is the mother of Muthammal. Muthammal is the mother of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that patta No.1357 relates to S.No.146/6A. If it is so, while UDR took place, S.No.146/6A was sub-divided into S.No.146/6A1 and S.No.146/6A2 without notice to Annalakshmi Ammal. On this ground alone, the sub-division of S.No.146/6A into S.No.146/6A1 and S.No.146/6A2 in UDR is bad. It is nowhere stated, either by the second respondent or the first respondent, notice was given to Annalakshmi Ammal before sub-division of S.No.146/6A under UDR.
22. Furthermore, patta No.1357 relates to S.No.146/6A. After UDR, S.No.146/6A could not relate to S.No.146/6A1 ad-measuring a smaller extent of land. There is no reason for the sub-division of S.No.146/6A to the detriment of Annalakshmi Ammal or from others.
23. When an error took place by sub-dividing S.No.146/6A as S.No.146/6A1 and S.No.146/6A2, without notice to Annalakshmi Ammal on whose name the patta No.1357 relates to S.No.146/6A stood, the same was sought to be corrected by Muthammal, the daughter of Annalakshmi Ammal, as Annalakshmi Ammal died in the mean time.
24. Based on the representation of Muthammal to the third respondent-Thasildar, Perambalur Taluk, for correcting error in UDR, the Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector of the concerned Village sent report to the Thasildar. Those reports are also enclosed in the typed-set of papers.
25. The Village Administrative Officer recorded that the entire land in S.No.146/6A i.e, both S.No.146/6A1 and S.No.146/6A2, are under the occupation of Muthammal. The following is the report of the Village Administrative Officer:-
"bguk;gY}h; tlf;F g[y vz;/146-6A Vf;. 2/34 gl;lh giHaJ 1357 go gr;rKj;J kidtp md;dbyl;Rkpmk;;khs; vd;gtUf;F brhe;jkhd g{h;tPfkhd epykhFk;/ md;dbyl;Rkpmk;khs; ,we;Jtpl;lhh;/ mtUf;F thhpR jhuh; kDjhuh; jpUkjp/Kj;jk;khs; (kfs;) vd;gth; kl;Lk;jhd; ep/c/nk/jpl;lj;jpy; nkw;go g[y vz;/146/6A Vf;/ 2/34 epyj;jpid 146/6A1. 0.50.5 gl;lh 73. (Vf;/1/25) jpUkjp/md;dbyl;Rkp bgahpYk;. g[y vz;/146/6A2 0.44 Vh;!; (Vf; 1/10) gl;lh 1560 go nrhkehj Kjyp kfd; kPdhl;rp Re;juk; tifawh bgahpy; Tl;lhf gl;lh khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ g[y vz;/ 164/6-A-1 0.505 Vh;!; gl;lh 73 go kDjhuh; bgahpy; gt[j;jp go gl;lh khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,e;j epyk; gl;lh khw;wk; bghGJ jhd; g[y vz; 164/6A2 0.440 Vh;!; jdJ epyk; ntW egh; bgahpy; gl;lh khw;wk; bra;Js;sJ kDjhuUf;F bjhpate;Js;sJ/ nkw;go epy';fSf;F giHa rpl;lh efy; fzpzp gl;lh efy; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nrhkehj Kjyp kfd;fs; kPdhl;rp Re;juk; epy';fis ghfgphptpid gj;jpuk; vz; 258-2002 go jdJ rnfhjuh;fSf;F ghfk; gphpj;J bfhLj;Jtpl;lhh; mjd;go g[y vz; 146/6A2 0.44.0 Vh;!; epyk; nrhkehj Kjyp kfd; uh$kjp vd;gtUf;F gphpj;Js;sJ ,ju epy';fs; kw;wth;fSf;F ghfk; gphpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ghfgphptpid gj;jpuefy; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,e;epyk; UDRy; jtWjyhf gl;lhkhw;wk; bra;ag;gl;lij bjhpahky; ghfgphptpid gj;jpuj;jpy; nrh;j;J vGjg;gl;Ls;sJ vd tprhuizapd; K:yk; bjhpatUfpwJ/ vjph;kDjhuh; jpU/uh$kjp vd;gth; ,';F FoapUg;g[ ,y;iy Mrphpauhf ghz;or;nrhpapy; trpj;JtUfpwhh;/ ,e;epyj;jpid uh$kjp ,Jtiu mDnghfk; bra;atpy;iy kDjhuh; mDnghfj;jpy; ,Ue;JtUfpwJ/"
26. Likewise, the Revenue Inspector sent a report to the third-respondent Thasildar. The following passage from the said report is extracted here-under:-
"kPjp epykhfpa 146-6A2 0.44.0 Vh;!; gl;lh 1560 go gf;fj;jpYs;s epy brhe;jf;fhuh;fshd nrhkehj Kjyp kf;fs; kPdhl;rp Re;juk; 1 n$hjp uhkyp';fk; 2 uhkrhe;jpud; 3 fpUc;&zK:h;j;jp 4 rpd;drhkp 5 uh$pkjp 6 Mfpnahh; bgahpy; Tl;lhf UDRy; jtWjyhf gl;lh khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdf;F vGj gof;f bjhhpahj fhuzj;jhy; jtWjyhf gl;lh khw;wgl;Ls;s tptuk; bjhpatpy;iy/ fzpzp gl;lh bgw;W ghh;f;Fk;bghGJ bjhpate;Js;sJ/ nkw;go epy';fis ehd; jhd; mDgnghfk; bra;JtUfpnwd;/ nkw;go jtWjyhf gl;lh khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s egh;fis tprhuiz bra;J g[y vz; 146/6A2 0.44 epyj;jpid vdJ bgahpy; jdpg;gl;lh khw;wpjUk; go jhH;ika[ld; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ jtWjyhf gl;lh khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;l egh; epyk; mUfpy; cs;sjhy; mtuJ bgahpy; UDRy; nrh;f;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/"
27. The third respondent-Thasildar has also made a spot inspection. Based on his spot inspection and the reports from the Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector of the concerned Village, he passed an order dated 29.05.2008, wherein it has been held that there was an error in UDR by sub-dividing S.No.146/6A as S.No.146/6A1 and S.No.146/6A2 and transferring that patta relating to S.No.146/6A2 in the name of Muthammal. Para 8 and 9 of the said order is extracted here-under:-
"8. g[y vz;/146-6A2 jyg;ghh;itaplg;gl;lJ gpu!;jhg jyj;jpy; rhFgoapd;wp ntypf;fUit ku';fs; kDjhuuhy; mfw;wg;gl;L kDjhuh; trj;jpy; epyk; cs;sJ vd;gJld; kDjhuh; kiwe;j md;dyl;Rkp vd;gthpd; xnu thhpR Mthh; vd;gJk; Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy bjhpa tUfpwJ/ 9/ vdnt g[y vz;/146-6A2 ,d; Vw;gl;Ls;s gl;lh epycilik nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;lg;gpiH vd;gjhy;. (Error in UDR) epycilik nkk;ghl;L jpl;lj;jpw;F Kd;g[ kDjhuh; jpUkjp/Kj;jk;khs; vd;gthpd; jhahh; md;dyl;Rkp vd;w bgahpy; Mtz';fs; jhf;fyhfpa[s;sij mDrhpj;J. g[y vz;/146-6A2 gug;g[ 0.44.0 bcwf;nlh; gug;gpw;F kDjhuh; fnzrd; kidtp Kj;jk;khs; vd;gtUf;F gl;lh khWjy; bra;tj Fwpj;J ghprPyf;fyhbkd bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,j;Jld; tprhuiz Mtz';fisa[k; ,izj;J mDg;gpa[s;nsd;/"
28. The appeal was preferred by the fourth respondent against the order dated 29.05.2008 of the third respondent, before the second respondent. The second respondent allowed the appeal by an order dated 16.04.2009. Even in the order dated 16.04.2009 of the second respondent, the second respondent has recorded as follows:-
"g[y vz;/146-6A2 a[/o/Mh;/-f;F Kd;dh; xU';fpize;j g[ykhf g[y vz;/146-6A KgtJk; kDjhuhpd; je;ij gr;rKj;J jhahh; md;dyl;Rkp mk;khs; jk;gjpapdh; bgahpnyna ,Ue;Js;sJ/"
29. In view of the aforesaid facts recorded by the second respondent, the second respondent ought to have confirmed the order of the third respondent. It is not their case that Somanadha Mudaliar and his legal-heirs purchased S.No.146/6A2 by way of any sale deed. But due to the mistake in UDR, patta in S.No.146/6A2, was granted in favour of Somanadha Mudaliar and his legal-heirs. Thereafter, the patta in S.No.146/6A2 was transferred in the name of the fourth respondent by way of partition deed in the family of Somanadha Mudaliar. The relevant passage of the order dated 16.04.2009 of the second respondent, is extracted here-under:-
",e;neh;tpy; a[/o/Mh;/ gl;lhtpy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;s nrhkRe;ju Kjypahh; thhpRfSf;F g[yvz;/146-6V2 f;F 0/44/0 bcwf;/ epyj;jpy; chpik cs;sJ vd;gjw;F j';f;s FLk;gj;jpw;Fs; bra;J bfhz;l ghf gj;jpu efy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;shh;/ ,jpy; ,e;j brhj;J j';fSf;F g{h;tPfkhf fpiuak; bgw;wJ vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/"
30. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the finding of the third respondent-Thasildar, that there was an error in UDR was by way of a well considered order. On the other hand, the order of the second respondent is not based on valid reasons. In fact, the aforesaid extract from his order stating that before UDR, S.No.146/6A stood in the name of Annalakshmi Ammal makes it very clear that the order of the second respondent reversing the order of the third respondent is bad and illegal. Further, the second respondent states that it is a tharisu land, while the Thasildar on his spot inspection found that it was not a tharisu land.
31. While, the Village Administrative Officer gave his report, that was referred to above that the petitioner was in possession of the land and that the fourth respondent-Rajamathi is not living in the Village but he is living in Pondicherry. However, the second respondent states in the impugned order dated 16.04.2009 that the land was not in possession of both the petitioner as well as fourth respondent-Rajamathi. According to the second respondent, he came to this conclusion based on the statement of Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector of the concerned Village. Hence, I am of the view that the order of the second respondent is contrary to the basic fact that there was an error in UDR .
32. Before UDR, the land stood in the name of the ancestors of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the mother of the petitioner was heard while a change was made in UDR to the detriment to the petitioner's family.
33. The order of the first respondent dated 06.11.2009 runs to so many pages. The first respondent proceeds as if he is deciding a title suit. However, the following is the concluding paragraph in the impugned order dated 06.11.2009 of the first respondent:-
",Wjpapy; epy clik gjpt[ nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;l gpiH jpUj;jk; bra;J gl;lh tH';f nfhhpa ,k;kDkPJ ,Ujug;gpdUf;Fk; nghjpa fhy mtfhrk; tH';fg;gl;ljpy; ,Ujug;gpduhYk; jhth g[yj;jpw;fhd rhpahd Mtz';fs; VJk; jhf;fy; bra;ag;glhj epiyapy; epy clik gjpt[ nkk;ghl;L jpl;lj;jpw;FKd; ve;j Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; gl;lh khw;wk; epfH;e;Js;sJ vd;gJ bjspt[gLj;j ,ayhjjhYk;. epy clik gjpt[ nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;lj;jpw;F gpd; gl;lh khw;wg;gl;ljw;fhd Mtz';fs; ,U jug;gpduhYk; jhf;fy; bra;ag;glhj epiyapYk;. jhth epykhJ ,Ujug;gpdhpd; mDgtj;jpy; ,y;iy vd tUtha; nfhl;lhl;rpauhy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhYk;. rk;ke;jg;gl;lth;fspd; nfhhpf;ifahdJ chpik bjhlh;g[ilajhf cs;sjhy; jFe;j chpikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpd; K:yk; ghpfhuk; njof;bfhs;s ,jd; K:yk; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/"
34. The above said concluding paragraph of the first respondent only deals with UDR and the transfer of patta. All other paras deal with the issue as if he was deciding a title suit. This concluding paragraph is also erroneous. Before UDR, there was no dispute that patta stood in the name of Annalakshmi Ammal by way of patta No.1357. As stated above, Annalakshmi Ammal is the mother of Muthammal, who is the mother of the petitioner. Hence the first respondent is not correct in his concluding paragraph "epy clik gjpt[ nkk;ghl;L jpl;lj;jpw;FKd; ve;j Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; gl;lh khw;wk; epfH;e;Js;sJ vd;gJ bjspt[gLj;j ,ayhjjhYk;". There was no controversy before UDR. The controversy arose only after UDR, while a change is made in UDR detriment to the petitioner's family, without notice. Hence the third respondent correctly corrected the error in UDR and restored the patta in the name of the mother of the petitioner. In my view, the order of the third respondent-Thasildar is perfectly justified.
35. Hence the order dated 16.04.2009 of the second respondent and the order dated 06.11.2009 of the first respondent are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same are quashed. If the fourth respondent is aggrieved, he could very well approach the competent Civil Court to establish his title to the property. The findings of the Revenue Authorities relating to patta could not come in the way of deciding title suit.
36. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P's are closed.
06.08.2010 Index : Yes Internet : Yes r n s To
1. The District Revenue Officer, Perambalur District Perambalur.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur District Perambalur.
3. The Thasildar Perambalur District Perambalur.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
r n s W.P.No.1663 of 2010 06.08.2010