Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. When the matter stood thus, in and around 22.01.2014, the respondents 4 and 5 filed an application for issue of patta in respect of the property comprised in Paimash No.967C and 968D measuring 0.1.2 kani and 1.15.6 kani respectively, measuring in total 2.0.8 kani situated at Thiruvanmiyur Village allegedly purchased by their father Shri Ramachandra https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Mudaliar from one Shri Rasu Gramani vide Sale deed dated 07.12.1945 regsistered as Doc.No.1016 of 1946. After the death of their father on 07.04.1992, the respondents 4 and 5 claiming to be the legal heirs of the said Ramachandra Mudaliarapproached the authorities for issuance of patta in Paimash No.967C and 968D. According to them, the said Paimash numbers correlates to Survey No.165/3.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Paimash Nos.967C and 968D have been acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu on behalf of the petitioner, which culminated in an Award No.11/1961 dated 23.10.1961. The said Paimash Nos.967C and 968D correlate to S.Nos.173/1A, 173/1B and 173/2B and not to S.No.165/3. The respondents 4 and 5 also filed a suit in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.No.5893 of 2013 in respect of Paimash Nos.967C and 968D in which they contended that the said property correlates to Survey Nos.172/3 and 172/4. Without considering all these facts merely on the basis of the application under the pretext of enquiry, the impugned order came to be passed. Wherein, the first respondent has ordered inclusion of the respondents 4 and 5 as Joint Pattadharars and also directed the 2nd respondent to measure and demarcate the properties of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order on the ground that first respondent exceeded jurisdiction conferred by law and decided on the properties of the Central Government under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983.

8. Counter has been filed by the first respondent, wherein, it is the contention of the first respondent that Paimash Nos.967C and 968D have been acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu on behalf of the petitioner, which culminated in an Award No.11/1961 dated 23.10.1961. However, the petitioner pointed out that the properties in Paimash Nos.967C and 968D correlate to S.Nos.173/1A, 173/1B and 173/2B and not to S.No.165/3. The application of the respondents 4 and 5 were referred to the second respondent. The second respondent referred the same to the first respondent, who, in turn issued notice on 31.07.2023 to the petitioner to attend enquiry on 03.08.2023. On 09.08.2023, the petitioner appeared and submitted additional written submissions and documents stating that the respondents 4 and 5 are not in possession of the property claimed by them, namely in S.No.165/3 or in Paimash Nos.967C and 968D. The second respondent inspected the petitioner's land including land in S.No.165/3, after enquiry the first respondent passed the impugned order whereby the first respondent has ordered the inclusion of the names of the respondents 4 and 5 in the patta as joint pattadars and also directed the 2nd respondent to measure and demarcate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the properties of the petitioner and further ordered to subdivide the property in S.No.165/3 and demarcate the road in the name of Corporation of Chennai. It is also the contention that the Paimash Nos.967C and 968D have been combined together and later divided into three parts to identify their survey numbers and the extent comprised in those survey numbers which has been clearly stated in the impugned order. Hence, opposed the writ petition.

9. The Fourth respondent has filed a counter. It is the contention of the fourth respondent that his father Ramachandra Mudaliar has purchased a property in Doc.No.1016/46 dated 09.04.1946 in respect of property in Paimash No.967C and 968D measuring 0.1.2 kani and 1.15.6 kani respectively, measuring in total 2.0.8 kani situated at Thiruvanmiyur Village. The patta was already granted in the name of his father in Patta No.80. The property in Paimash Number 967C is not connected with the subject property nor a dispute connected with the writ petition. The impugned order pertaining to Patta is only relating to the property in Paimash Number 968D, New Survey No.165/3 not relate to Paimash Number 967C. The partition deed executed by the respondents 4 and 5 dated 12.12.2008 registered in Doc.No.7648/2008, the Power of Attorney dated 31.12.2008 registered as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Doc.No.18/2009 executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the 4th respondent and the sale agreements dated 29.01.2009 registered as Doc.Nos.361/2009 and 362/2009 in favour of a third party were all executed only in respect of the property comprised in Paimash Number 967, Thiruvanmiyur Village, the Civil Suit in O.S.No.5893/2013 and other litigations also pertains to Paimash No.967 alone and it is not al all connected to Paimash No.968D or Survey No.165/3 as such no inference of the said suits can be made in the writ petition. After the death of the petitioner's father, the respondents 4 and 5 traced back the properties belonging to their family and only thereafter they started making claims to the appropriate authority for name change in patta in respect of the property owned by their father.