Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Page 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2.1.The case of the appellants is that the appellants' father by name Ramachandra Mudaliar originally purchased the property comprised in Paimash No.967C and 968D, measuring an extent of 0.1.2 kani and 1.15.6 kani, respectively, (total extent of 2.0.8 kani which is equivalent to 2.70 Acres). The property is situated in Thiruvanmiyur Village. The appellants' father died intestate on 07.04.1992 and their mother also died on 23.07.2003.

2.4.It was thereafter, the 4th respondent issued notice to the appellants and the 1st respondent M/s.Kalakshetra Foundation. Ultimately, the 3rd respondent sent a communication to the 2nd respondent on 21.08.2023 recommending the 2nd respondent to cancel the wrong patta issued in favour of the 1st respondent and issue patta in favour of the appellants. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 26.09.2023 accepting the case of appellants by directing the Tahsildar to issue joint patta in favour of the appellants along with the 1st respondent in respect of the property in Paimash No.968/D pertaining to S.No.165/3.

3.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants produced before this Court almost all the documents that were relied upon by the appellants before the Revenue officials to claim title to the property measuring an extent of 2.70 Acres in S.No.165/3 in Thiruvanmiyur Village. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Revenue records relating to the property, if traced prior to settlement, proves the case of the appellants that the property was only in the holding of the appellants' predecessor-in- interest. He pointed out that the 1st respondent claimed title to the property only by virtue of acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government to acquire the land, as the 1st respondent had no document of title. The learned Page 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Senior Counsel then submitted that the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition holding that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to decide. The learned Judge has held that the Revenue Divisional Officer, being the Appellate Authority, cannot pass an order on the application for mutation of records. The learned Senior Counsel tried to demonstrate before this Court that all the documents would only show that the property in Paimash No.986/D, which is relating to disputed property in S.No.165/3, was never recognized as the property of the 1st respondent, as no document relied upon by the 1st respondent would show any title in favour of the 1 st respondent in respect of Paimash No.968/D.

4.This Court, having regard to the admitted facts, is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents.

5.Learned Senior Counsel, of course, relied upon a few documents to convince us that the appellants' father had purchased the property in Paimash No.968/D. However, the learned Single Judge has given proper reasons why the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is wrong on the Page 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis basis of Revenue records. It is admitted before this Court that the appellants are not in possession, and possession of the property is with the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent appears to be the owner as per Revenue records but for the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer which is impugned in the writ petition. In such circumstances, it is futile even if we hold that order of 2nd respondent is justified, as the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court for appropriate orders. A person who is not in possession has to approach the Civil Court for declaration of his title and recovery of possession by process known to law. In this case, the appellants have not proved their title through a ryotwari settlement to get patta. From the records, the lands had been acquired for the 1st respondent. It is admitted that the entire property lies within the campus of 1st respondent.