Muthiah .A v. The District Revenue Officer /

ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1958/2017 E3 dated 06.05.2017 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to re-classify Sy.No. 6/21A as Sy.No.6/21 and to issue patta in favour of the petitioner with respect to subject property measuring 1 acre and 46 cents out of 3 acres 61 cents on the eastern side of Sy.No.6/21 at Udankundu Village, Madurai East Taluk.

¶2The case of the petitioner is that the property to an extent of 3 acres and 61 cents in Sy.No.6/21 was originally owned by one S.A.Umarsha Rawthar. He had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his son on 13.03.1972 for an extent of 2 acres 15 cents out of 3 acres 61 cents on the western side of the property. He executed yet another settlement deed in favour of the 3rd respondent on 08.08.1974 for an extent of 1 acre 46 cents in the eastern side of Sy.No.6/21.

¶3Further case of the petitioner is that he purchased the property to an extent of 1 acre 46 cents from the 3rd respondent through a registered sale deed dated 24.09.1996. It is stated that at the time of UDR survey, the entry in the revenue records was wrongly made. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent.

¶4The 1st respondent through proceedings dated 24.04.2017 held as follows: WP(MD)No.22680oofo2021 jhth nrhj;J epy clik Nkk;ghl;Lj; jpll; j;jpw;Fg; jhthnrhj;J epy gpd;Gclik. Nkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpw;F Kd;G Gy vz; : 6/21 Gy vz; : 6/21V tp];jPuzk; : 0.56.5 tp];juP zk; : 3.61 Vf;fu; gl;lh vz; : 76 gl;lh vz; : 16 cupikahsuf; s; : cupikahsu;fs; ,stu; [hapyh gPtp fhg;ghsu; khkh rh.m.cku;\h uhTj;ju; ng.m.mg;Jy;yh Gy vz; : 6/21gp tp];jPuzk; : 0.86.4 gl;lh vz; :44 cupikahsu;fs; : rh.m.c.iraJ ,gu; h`pk; jhth nrhj;J gjpT Mtzq;fspd;gb fPo;fh?khW (BeforeoUDR) jhdk; kw;Wk; fpg;l; %yk; gjpT nra;J nfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Mtz Gy vz; Tp];jPuz vOjpf; nfhLj;jtH vOjp thq;fpatH vz; k; mfkJ ,g;uh`pk; rh.m.ciraJ 852/1975 6.21/3.61 02.15 uhTj;ju; kfd; ,gu; h`pk; (Nky;Gwk; rh.m.cku;rh (ikdu;)) mfkJ ,g;uh`pk; ikdu; yhapyh gPL 3490/1974 6/21(361) 01.46 uhTj;ju; kfd; fhu;bad; mg;Jy;yh rh.m.cku;rh Gy vz; 6/21 epy chpik Nkk;ghl;L jpl;lj;jpw;F Kd;G Mtz vz ; 852/1972-d; mbgg; ilapy; TK.8A/83/82 oehs;: 25.10.1972-d; gb fPo;fh?khW cl;gpupT nra;agg; l;Ls;sJ.

0.56.5 rh.m.cku;rh6/21A

0.86.0 rh.m.c.iraJ ,g;uh`pk;6/21B Mtz vz;.3490/1974d; gb jkf;F fpilj;j jhth nrhj;jpid WP(MD)No.22680oofo2021 jpUkjp yhapyhgPtp Nk[uhdTld; Mtz; vz;.2251/1996d; gb jpU. M.Kj;ijah vd;gtUf;F fpiuak; nra;J nfhLj;Js;shu;. Mtz vz;.852/1972d; gb Gy vz;.6/21.I cl;gpupT nra;j NghJ tp];jPuzk; 2.15 Vf;fu; epyk; fPoG; uj;jpYk; tp];jPuzk; 1.46 Vf;fu; epyk; Nky;Guj;jpYk; jtWjyhf cl;gpupT nra;ag;gl;L jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L tpl;lJ. ,jdbg;gilapy; epy clik Nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;lg; gzpapYk;> fpuhk tl;lf; fzf;Ffspy; epy cupikahsu;fspd; ngau;fs; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ltpl;lJ. gjpT Mtzq;fspd; mbg;gilapy; my;yhky; jtWjyhf epy clik Nkk;ghl;L jpl;lj;jpy; jahupf;fgg; l;l Mtzq;fspy; gpioahf gjpTfs; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;L tpl;lJ. MfNt cld;Fz;L fpuhkk; Gy vz;.6/21 tp];jPuzk; 3.61 Vf;fu ; GQ;ir epyk; cl;gpupT nra;ag;gl;L> 6/21A tp];jPuzk; 0.56.5 6/21Bo tp];jPuzk; 0.86.0 xUq;fpizf;fg;gl;L> epy clik Nkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpw;F Kd;gpUe;j epiyf;F fPo;f;fh?khW nfhzL; nry;y Mizaplg;gLfpwJ. epy clik Nkk;ghl;L jpl;lj;jpw;F Gpd;G chpikahsh; Kd;G ,Ue;j chpikahsH jtWjyhf epiy cl;gpupT nra;ag;gl;lJ ,stH [hapd; gPtp rh.m.ckH\h1.6/21A-0.56.5 6/21-3.61 Vf;fH fhg;ghsH khkh uhTj;jHmy;yJ 1.42.5 ng.m.mg;Jy;yh n`fN; lH rh.m.c.iraJ ,gu; h`p2.6/21B-0.86.0 k; Nkw;fz;lthW jpU.rh.m.ckH\h uhTj;jH ngahpy; KOikahf xUq;fpizf;fg;gl;l gpd; mjd; gpd;dH Vw;gLj;jg;gl;l jhdnrl;by;nkz;l; kw;Wk; fpiua Mtzq;fspd;gb cs;s tp];jPuzk; kw;Wk; ehd;Fkhy;fspd;gb Gjpjhf rk;ge;jg;gl;l fpiuajhu;fs; Kd;dpiyapy; rupahf cl;gpupT nra;J midj;J Mtzq;fs; kw;Wk; fzpdpapy; jhf;fy; nra;jplTk; kJiu fpof;F tl;lhl;rpaUf;F cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

¶5Pursuant to the above order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent seeking for issuance of patta. The 2nd respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 10.09.2018 rejected the representation on the ground that judgment and decree has been passed in O.S.No.218 of 2015 by the learned District Munsif, Melur, on 21.12.2017 granting the relief of permanent injunction. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to work out his remedy by filing an appeal against the judgment and decree before the competent civil court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

¶6The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the 4th respondent has taken a stand that the subject matter of the present case has already been decided by the civil court in O.S.No.218 of 2015 and the decree has become final and therefore, the petitioner does not have any right to seek for the patta with respect to the subject property.

¶7Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. There is no representation for the 3rd respondent.

¶8The order passed by the 1st respondent dated 06.05.2017 shows that the property that was purchased by the petitioner is in Sy.No.6/21B. The patta that was sought for by the petitioner also pertains to Sy.No.6/21B, whereas the suit that was filed by the 4th respondent in O.S.No.218 of 2015 pertains to Sy.No. 6/21A. The petitioner has taken a very specific stand that he has not claimed any right insofar as Sy.No.6/21A is concerned. It is true that a decree has been passed by the civil court by granting the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the 4th respondent.

¶9The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the petitioner is not in possession of Sy.No.6/21B and that the petitioner is trying to take advantage of the order passed by the 1st respondent to grab Sy.No.6/21A from the 4th respondent. It is further contended that the 4th respondent was forced to approach the civil court since he apprehended that his possession is in danger with respect to Sy.No.6/21A.

¶10In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner is claiming right in Sy.No.6/21B and the 4th respondent is claiming right in Sy.No.6/21A. On a perusal of the documents that are placed before this Court, that is the only issue that is quite apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the Tahsildar ought not to have passed the impugned order by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner by quoting the judgment passed in O.S.No.218 of 2015 since the judgment pertains to the property in Sy.No.6/21A. The Tahsildar ought to have conducted a survey and identified the properties and thereafter should have taken a decision by taking into consideration the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 24.04.2017. Therefore, since this process was not undertaken by the 2nd respondent, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 10.09.2018 and the same is hereby quashed.

¶11The matter is remanded back to the file of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is directed to conduct a survey, hear the petitioner and also the 4th respondent and also take into consideration the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 24.04.2017 and thereafter pass a final order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12The 2nd respondent shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court in this Writ Petition and dispose of the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶13In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

30.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No CM To,

¶1The District Revenue Officer/ Additional District Magistrate, District Revenue Office, Madurai.

¶2The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Madurai East at Othakadai, Madurai District. WP(MD)No.22680oofo2021 N.ANANDoVENKATESH,oJ. CM Orderomadeoin W.P.(MD)No.22680oofo2021o andoW.M.P.o(MD)oNos.19160oofo2021 Dated:

30.11.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.(MD)No.22680 of 2021 and W.M.P. (MD) No.19160 of 2021 Dr.A.Muthiah ...Petitioner /Vs./ 1. The District Revenue Officer/ Additional District Magistrate, District Revenue Office, Madurai. 2. The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Madurai East at Othakadai, Madurai District. 3. Layila Beebi @ Rahila Mariam, W/o. Abdul Azeez, Door No.50, Ganapathy Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. 4. M.Muniyasamy, S/o. Manikkatti, Sakkimangalam, Madurai East, Madurai District. ...Respondents PRAYER:- Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1958/2017 E3 dated 06.05.2017 and direct the 2nd Respondent to re-classify as S.No. 6/21 as per the order of the 1st Respondent instead of 6/21A and to quash the consequential order passed by the 2nd Respondent by way of rejecting the application of the Petitioner for issuance of Patta in Na.Ka.No. 2775/2018/S1 dated 10.09.2018 and to issue patta in favour of the petitioner for the property to an extent of 1 Acre 46 cents out of 3 Acre 61 Cents in the eastern side in S.No.6/21 at Udankundu Village, Madurai East Taluk on the basis of the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 24.09.1996. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader For R3 : No Appearance For R4 : Mr.S.Asaithambi