Madras High Court
Velu vs The Tahsildhar on 27 July, 2022
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.P.No.42300 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
W.P.No.42300 of 2016
1.Velu
2.Thangavelu
3.Shanmugam ..Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Tahsildhar,
Katpadi Taluk Office,
Katpadi, Katpadi Taluk,
Vellore District.
2.The Surveyor,
Katpadi Taluk Office,
Katpadi, Katpadi Taluk,
Vellore District.
3.The Assistant Director,
Land Surveyor, Collector Office,
Vellore District – 9.
4.Vasudevan ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the file
relation to Sub-Division effected on 31.01.2012 in
Ra.Paa.Maa.Ma.No.2996/11.12 from the file of the 1st respondent and quash
the same.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.42300 of 2016
For Petitioners : Mr.R.T.Sundari
For Respondents : Mrs.V.Yamunadevi
Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3
Mr.C.Chockalingam for R4
ORDER
Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the proceedings of the Sub- Division effected by the Tahsildar, Katpadi in respect of the properties situated in Survey No.22 of Thengal Villlage in Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. According to the petitioner, the said sub-division was effected without notice to the petitioner and the pathway was provided in the middle of the property thereby, reducing the extent that belonged to the petitioner.
2.The learned Government Pleader would submit that the sub- division was effected based on the sale deeds produced by the 4 th respondent, Vasudevan. The entire extent originally belonged to the family of the petitioner. The petitioner's paternal uncle namely, Alliraja had sold away his 4.11 ½ cents under sale deed dated 16.04.1993. In the said sale deed, the executant claims that there was a oral partition between him and father of the petitioner, Sundaramunusamy Reddy, in and by which, the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.42300 of 2016 Northern 4 acres 11 ½ cents was allotted to him. The property allotted to Alliraja in the sale deed is described as 4 acres 11 ½ cents bounded on the North by Andhra Pradesh boundary, South by land belonging to Sundaramunusamy Reddy, East by Tank and road, West by Cart Track called Pasu Battai. Subsequent there to, there has been a partition between the purchaser Arunachalam and his children. In the said partition, an extent of 20 cents on the Southern side of the property purchased by Alliraja was allotted to Arunachalam and the remaining extent of 3 acres 92 cents was allotted to his son, Vasudevan / 4th respondent.
3.The sub-division was effected based on these two registered instruments and the land that was allotted to the 4th respondent was sub- divided as Survey No.22-2A, the land that was allotted to Arunachalam was sub-divided as Survey No.22-2B and the land that was belonged to the petitioner's family was sub-divided as Survey No.22-2C. The grievance of the petitioner is that because of the provision of the passage in between the extent of alloted to him has reduced.
4.The original records have been produced. It is seen therefrom 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.42300 of 2016 that the extent of Survey No.22-2C, which is now been sub-divided in the name of the petitioner's family is 4 acres 11 cents, which is the actual extent that the family was entitled to. The 4 acres 11 cents that was sold by Alliraja to Arunachalam has been divided into 2 parts. 20 cents has been allotted to Arunachalam has been assigned as Survey No.22-2B and the remaining 3 acres 92 cents allotted to Vasudevan, the 4th respondent and has been assigned Survey No.22-2A. Therefore, according to the 4th respondent and the revenue, the extent of land that belong to the petitioner remains intact and it has not been reduced in any manner and therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner by the sub-division.
5.Since sub-division was effected only in respect of the property that was purchased by Arunachalam from Alliraja under the 1993 sale deed and the subsequent partition deed, no notice to the petitioner is necessary. Even assuming such notice is necessary to the petitioner, I do not think that his absence of any prejudice, the petitioner can challenge the sub-division. It is seen from the records that the extent of land that belonged to the petitioner remains unaltered and it has been assigned as Survey No.22-2C. Therefore, 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.42300 of 2016 I do not find any prejudice to the petitioner.
6.Hence, this Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a certian portion of his land on the Western side has been encroached upon. If that be the case, it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court seeking appropriate relief. No costs.
27.07.2022 kkn Index:No Internet:Yes Speaking order 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.42300 of 2016 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN To:-
1.The Tahsildhar, Katpadi Taluk Office, Katpadi, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.
2.The Surveyor, Katpadi Taluk Office, Katpadi, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.
3.The Assistant Director, Land Surveyor, Collector Office, Vellore District – 9.W.P.No.42300 of 2016
27.07.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis