Ramanathan.P v. The District Collector

O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

¶2The only request made by the petitioner is for conducting survey and issuance of separate patta for survey No.712/1 in Nathampatti Village. The petitioner's request was rejected by the Tahsildar vide memo dated 25.05.2023. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.

¶4The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that since serious objection was received from the third respondent as regards the identity of the property purchased by the petitioner, the order impugned in this writ petition has to be sustained and that the 3 W.P.(MD)NO.28915 OF 2023 parties will have to go only before the jurisdictional civil Court. The learned Government Advocate called upon this Court to sustain the impugned order.

¶5The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the petition-mentioned property was originally owned by one Subbiah. The said Subbiah sold the petition-mentioned property in favour of one Durairaj Naicker in the year 1977. From the said Durairaj Naicker, the third respondent purchased in the year 2011. The contention of the third respondent is that what actually sold by Subbiah was the land comprised in survey No.712/1 and survey No.712/2 was wrongly mentioned. He therefore called upon this Court to sustain the impugned order and dismiss the writ petition.

¶6I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

¶7The learned Government Advocate made available all the revenue records. The lands comprised in survey Nos.712/1 and 712/2 Nathampatti Village originally stood in the name of Subbiah. Subbiah sold two items of the property in favour of Durairaj vide sale deed dated 29.10.1977 4 W.P.(MD)NO.28915 OF 2023 (document No.1203/1977).

¶8I am not concerned with item No.1. Item No.2 is related to the issue on hand. The schedule property of the sale deed bearing No1203 /1977 is as follows:- 5 W.P.(MD)NO.28915 OF 2023

Subsequently, in the year 1995, Subbiah conveyed his undivided half share in favour of his brother Subramanian in survey No.712/1 vide sale deed dated 19.06.1995 (document No.516/1995). Subramaniam subsequently passed away. The petitioner herein purchased survey No.712/1 from Subbiah and the legal heirs of Subramaniam vide sale deed dated

27.01.2023. The description of the property in respect of the item on hand is as follows:- "tpUJefh; gjpT khtl;lk; Fd;D}h; rhh;gjptfk; tj;jpuhapUg;G A+dpad; ej;jk;gl;b fpuhkk; m.G.r 712/1 ek;gh; n`f;Nlh; 0.76.5f;F Vf;fh; 1 nrz;l; 89k; Kog;ghj;jpaKk;> fpzWk; Nrh;e;J ehd;F khy;. tlf;F - Gy vz;.709> 710> 711 epyq;fs; njw;F - Gy vz; 712/2gp epyk; fpof;F - Gy vz; 713/C epyk; Nkw;F - Gy vz; 709 epyk; MFk;. ,JTk; i\ ephpy; cs;s fpzh; [yk; fkiy fkiyf;Fop cj;jptha;f;fhy; tiawh Kog;ghj;jpaKk; ,JTk; i\ fpzw;wpy; mikj;jpUf;Fk; 5 vr; gp kpd;rhu Nkhl;lhh; tifawh KOg;ghj;jpaKk; (&k; ,y;iy) ,JTk;

¶2i\ Gy vz;.713/C-y; fz;l nrz;l; 50 cs;s epyj;jpy; tlf;F gf;fk; 11 (n`f;Nlh; 0.04.46) cs;s epyk; KOg;ghj;jpaKk; ehd;F 6 W.P.(MD)NO.28915 OF 2023 khy;. tlf;F - Gy vz;. 711 epyk; njw;F - Gy vz; 712/2A epyk; fpof;F - N.H. kJiu NuhL nkapd;NuhL Nkw;F - Gy vz;fs;.712/1 & 712/2A epyq;fs; MFk; jgrpy; rhp. ,j;Jld; gl;lh khw;w Gs;spkDTk; nfhLf;fg;gl;bUf;fpwJ."

¶9The core argument of the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent is that four boundaries description found in the petitioner's sale deed and the sale deed in the name of Durairaj are one and the same. Even a casual perusal reveals that the four boundaries are not one and the same. What was sold to the petitioner was survey No. 712/1 and what was sold to the third respondent was survey No.712/2. In fact, the third respondent filed O.S.No.206 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur against his vendors Subbiah and Subramaniam for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed as exparte on 28.09.2020. Item No.2 of suit schedule which is relevant reads as follows:- " Nkw;gb m.G.r 712/2 eph; Vf;fh; 1 nrz;l; 66k; m.G.r 713/C eph; nrz;l; 49k; (Nkw;gb rh;Nt 713/C eph; cl;gphpTf;F Kd; 713y; mlf;fk;) Mf nkhj;jk; Vf;fh; 2 7 W.P.(MD)NO.28915 OF 2023 nrz;l; 15y; tlgf;fk; fpof;F Nkw;F mila kJiu Nuhl;Lf;Fk; (Nkw;F)> Nkw;gb 1tJ mapl;l nrhj;Jf;Fk; (fpof;F) rPj;jk;khs; epyj;Jf;Fk; flw;fiu epyj;Jf;Fk; (njw;F)

Rg;igah

iftrKs;s

epyj;Jf;Fk; (tlf;F) ,jw;Fs; nrz;l; 20(n`f;Nlh;]; 0.08.0) Kog;ghj;jpaKk; jgrpy; rhp."

¶10The suit schedule description and the description set out in the sale deed of Durairaj Naicker are one and the same. I fail to understand what objection the third respondent can have to the petitioner's request. In fact, there is absolutely no identity of interest. While the petitioner purchased one item of the property, the third respondent purchased the other item of the property. The petitioner's right is confined to survey No.712/1.

¶11The second respondent is directed to conduct survey as sought for by the petitioner. Based on the outcome of the survey, survey sketch and survey report shall be served to the petitioner as well as the third respondent. Separate patta will be issued thereafter. If there is any other interested person, they will also have to be put on notice. I assume for the moment that the dispute is between the petitioner and the 8 W.P.(MD)NO.28915 OF 2023 third respondent alone. This exercise shall be concluded by the second respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order impugned in this writ petition is set aside. This writ petition stands allowed.

¶12I make it clear that if the third respondent is still aggrieved, it is always open to the third respondent to move the jurisdictional civil Court for appropriate relief against the writ petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.12.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU To:

¶1The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Collectorate, Virudhunagar.

¶2The Tahsildar, Watrap Taluk, Taluk Office, Watrap, Virudhunagar District. 9 W.P.(MD)NO.28915 OF 2023 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J. PMU W.P.(MD)No.28915 of 2023

07.12.2023

1 W.P.(MD)NO.28915 OF 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.12.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.28915 of 2023 & W.M.P.(MD)No.24942 of 2023 P.Ramanathan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Collectorate, Virudhunagar. 2. The Tahsildar, Watrap Taluk, Taluk Office, Watrap, Virudhunagar District. 3. Mathivanan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the orders of the second respondent dated 25.05.2023, 06.06.2023 and 06.07.2023 quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to survey, sub-divide the land of the petitioner in Nathampatti Village, survey No.712/1 and issue separate patta in the name of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Ms.D.Geetha For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar, Government Advocate. For R-3 : Mr.Balaji * * * 2 W.P.(MD)NO.28915 OF 2023