Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The case of the appellant is that during the Samasdhanam period, the appellant's father Chinna Munikaruppan was granted patta in respect of Paimash No.105 of Nochiyurani village, Ramanathapuram Taluk, measuring an extent of about 5.40 acres. In the settlement proceedings conducting during 1964, the lands in paimash No.105, 91 & 92 were clubbed together and survey No.134 was assigned and the total extent is said to be 6.67.0 hects., and a joint patta No.75, dated 12.09.1964 was issued in the name of 10 persons including the father of the appellant. It is further submitted that during 1987, Joint patta No.223, was issued including the name of the appellant. During 1989, the appellant submitted an application for sub-division of the property and issuance of separate patta in her name. The fourth respondent, who was a co-pattadhar submitted his objections and based on which the Tahsildhar conducted enquiry after inspecting the land and confirmed the Joint patta including the name of the appellant. Aggrieved by such order, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal to the second respondent, who by proceedings dated 25.02.1991, dismissed the appeal. The fourth respondent filed a revision before the third respondent, who allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the second respondent with certain directions. On such remand, the second respondent by order dated 31.12.1992, directed the deletion of paimash No.105 and inclusion of paimash Nos.90, 91 & 92. Against such order passed by the second respondent, the appellant preferred appeal to the third respondent, which was dismissed by order dated 20.03.1993. Challenging the order dated 20.03.1992, passed by the third respondent confirming the order passed by the second respondent dated 31.12.1992, the writ petition was filed.

6. We have heard Mr.S.Anbarasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.P.S.Shiva Shanmughasundaram learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.R.T.Doraisamy learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent and carefully perused the materials placed on record.

7. In the writ petition, the third respondent had filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. The official respondents sought to justify their order by referring to an inspection conducting by the second respondent on 31.12.1992, in which it is stated that the contentions raised by the appellant, were not proved. Further, it is stated that the fourth respondent has produced documents and during the inspection of the property, it was found that paimash Nos.90, 91 & 92 alone correlate to survey No.134 and paimash No.105 has been wrongly included in survey No.134. Further, in the counter affidavit the official respondents have made a statement that the appellant has not filed the SLR copy either before the second respondent or the third respondent to prove that the land in survey No.134/1, belong to his ancestor. This stand taken in the counter affidavit appears to have largely weighed with the writ Court for dismissing the writ petition. However, when we peruse the impugned orders in the writ petition, it is seen that the appellant has produced the relevant SLR copy. In such circumstances, the statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition is factually incorrect. The certified copy of the SLR has been filed by the appellant in the typed set of papers, from which it is seen that survey No.134 corresponds to paimash No.91, 105 and 92. From column No.29 of the certified copy of the SLR, it is seen that the name of Chinna Munikaruppan finds place as serial No.10. The specific contention of the appellant is that this record has not been properly appreciated by the respondents 2 & 3 and when the appellant produced kist receipts to show that Chinna Munikaruppan had paid kist for the land in patta No.75, during 1977 and kist was paid by the appellant for patta No.75, during 1982, ignoring these vital documents, without due application of mind, the second respondent proceeded to solely rely upon the inspection conducted to held that property in paimash No.105, does not form part of the survey No.134.

8. Prima facie on perusal of the certified copy of the SLR, it appears that the findings recorded by the respondents 2 & 3 are incorrect. If the entry contained in the SLR is incorrect, then the respondents 2 & 3 ought to have assigned reasons, which are legally justifiable to show that paimash No.105, has been wrongly included and the correct paimash numbers to be included are only 90, 91 & 92. However, when we peruse the orders passed by the respondents 2 & 3, there is no such findings recorded by the authorities.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the second respondent in his order dated 25.02.1991, categorically stated that the appellant was in possession of her land and joint patta have been issued in the name of 10 persons including the appellant and without altering the said finding, the second respondent deleted her name from the patta without any valid reason. Further, it is submitted that nobody has claimed that paimash No.90 should be included in survey No.134 and to delete paimash No.105 and even as per the claim of the fourth respondent, paimash Nos.91 & 92 alone comprises survey No.134 and it was nobody's case that paimash No.90 should be included in survey No.134. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant also produced a decree passed in O.S.No.419 of 1971, on the file of the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, which arose out of a dispute between the fourth respondent and his co-sharers in which paimash No.91, is described as item 70 and the extent given is only 5.4 acres as against the total extent of 16.93 acres. Further, it is submitted that patta No.62 for paimash No.92, has been issued in the name of Ramapillai and it is the fourth respondent's claim that Ramapillai was his grandfather, but the said contention is not correct, as he is the father of the Nagalingampillai, which is why the name of Nagalingampillai has also been incorporated in survey settlement patta No223. Therefore, it is the contention of the appellant that the entire extent of 16.93 acres claimed by the fourth respondent is erroneous.