Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Writ Petition is filed by one Serya Pushpam, through her Power of Attorney, by name, M.Jayakumar, for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of fourth respondent in proceedings G.O.Ms.51, dated 24.01.2007, and quash the same.

2. The brief facts, that are set out in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, are as follows :

2.1. Petitioner's husband, by name, Sri V.Doss Peck, while he was in service of Navy, submitted an application for assignment of certain land. His request was considered and an order of assignment in favour of Sri V.Doss Peck was issued on 02.09.1966. As per the order of assignment, an extent of 4 acres in Survey No.523 and an extent of 1 acre in Survey No.524 in Perumbakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, http://www.judis.nic.in Chengalpet District, was assigned in favour of Sri V.Doss Peck free of land value, but on collection of stone value of Rs.2/- and sub-division fee of Rs.4/-, subject to usual conditions of assignment in relaxation of orders in G.O.Ms.No.1135, Revenue, dated 16.03.1962. In the said order, it was stated that the assignment was by order of Government. Petitioner has produced before this Court the revenue record to show that her husband was the pattadar of the property and Kist from Fasli 1388 to 1392 was also paid by her. Petitioner's husband, during his lifetime, created a mortgage in respect of the property, which was assigned to him, for a loan obtained from Saidapet Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited and the said mortgage deed, issued by the Bank, indicates that the property was mortgaged and later redeemed by clearance of loan on 15.10.1975. Petitioner's husband Sri V.Doss Peck died on 08.05.1993, leaving behind the petitioner, two sons and three daughters. The Legal Heir certificate produced by the petitioner shows the particulars of the legal representatives. It is stated that the revenue officials refused to collect land revenue under the pretext of patta in favour of petitioner's husband being cancelled. It is further stated that petitioner's husband or petitioner was not given any notice before cancellation of patta.