The Madras High Court observed that the restoration of ‘patta’ in the name of the Petitioner will not in any way affect the rights of the fourth Respondent in approaching the competent Civil Court to establish his title and possession over the survey numbers in dispute. Further, the ownership is determined by the correctness of revenue records and not the sale deal.
Brief Facts:
One M. Perumal Nadar owed an extent of 1 acre and 24 cents in Tirunelveli District. After his death, his legal heirs executed a registered sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner on 26.12.1995. Based upon the said sale deed, the ‘patta’ was transferred in his name by order of the third Respondent dated 12.01.2006. The fourth Respondent had filed an appeal before the second Respondent on 22.01.2008, alleging that survey numbers in dispute originally belonged to one E. Perumal Nadar, the grandfather of the fourth Respondent herein. The appeal was dismissed.
After that, the fourth Respondent filed a revision before the first Respondent. The first Respondent passed the order and reversed the order by the second Respondent to grant ‘patta’ in favour of the ancestor of the fourth Respondent. The Petitioner challenged the said order by the first Respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records about the impugned order and quash the same as illegal.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the second Respondent made a detailed inquiry. He found that the fourth Respondent did not produce records to establish his grandfather's title over the property except UDR ‘patta’, 'A' register copy. He also found that before UDR proceedings, the revenue records were standing in the name of M. Perumal Nadar, from whom the Petitioner had purchased the property. Based on the said finding, the second Respondent dismissed the appeal.
However, the first Respondent did not correctly appreciate the mistake in the UDR proceedings and proceeded to cancel the ‘patta’ in favour of the writ petitioner and restored the ‘patta’ in favour of the legal heirs of E. Perumal Nadar. Also, he did not appreciate the revenue records produced for the ‘fasli’ in the year 1370, which is relatable to the year 1960. As per the revenue records, the name of M. Perumal Nadar is reflected in the ‘Chitta’. Therefore, the first Respondent ought not to have relied upon the UDR proceedings and cancelled the ‘patta’ granted in favour of the writ petitioner.
Further, it was contended that the fourth Respondent approached the second Respondent after two years from the date of the order passed by the third Respondent and hence, the appeal is barred by limitation. Additionally, the fourth Respondent, claiming the rival title, is to approach the competent Civil Court as directed by the second Respondent.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was contended that the properties originally belonged to one E. Perumal Nadar. The fourth Respondent is his grandson. When the revenue records were standings in the name of the legal heirs of E. Perumal Nadar, the Petitioner could not have purchased the properties from another person, namely M. Perumal Nadar, in 1995. Hence, the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner dated 27.12.1995 is invalid and will not confer any title upon the writ petitioner.
Since the Petitioner had purchased the property from the person whose name is not reflected in the revenue records, the order of the first Respondent herein is legally valid, and the same may be sustained.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the ‘Chitta’ produced by the Petitioner indicates that it is a joint ‘Chitta’ in which the name of M. Perumal Nadar is reflected as Serial No.1. No document which is anterior to UDR proceedings has been produced on the side of the fourth Respondent. No registered document has been produced to establish his right over the disputed survey numbers. The second Respondent herein has arrived at a finding that only during UDR proceedings the name of the ancestor of the fourth Respondent has been entered into, and there are no previous revenue records. He has also arrived at a finding that before UDR proceedings, the revenue records were standing in the name of M. Perumal Nadar, the writ petitioner's vendor herein. Hence, this Court found that the Petitioner has made a prima facie case for the grant of ‘patta’ in his favour.
The first Respondent, instead of analysing whether the entry of E. Perumal Nadar in the revenue records during the UDR proceedings is correct, has proceeded to hold that the Petitioner has purchased it from a person whose name is not reflected in the revenue records during the UDR proceedings. Hence, the said findings of the first Respondent are not legally sustainable.
The Petitioner has established that the revenue records before UDR proceedings were standing in the name of M. Perumal Nadar, and only during UDR proceedings had got mutated into the name of E. Perumal Nadar. When the fourth Respondent has not explained how the name of E. Perumal Nadar got mutated during the UDR proceedings, this Court was of the view that the order of the first Respondent herein reversing the order of the second Respondent was not legally sustainable.
Decision:
The order impugned in the writ petition was set aside. The third Respondent was directed to restore the ‘patta’ in the name of the writ petitioner. This writ petition was accoridngly allowed.
Case Title: G. Senthil Kumar v The District Revenue Officer & Ors.
Coram: Hon'ble Justice R. Vijayakumar
Case No: W.P.(MD). No. 14421 of 2013 and M.P(MD).Nos.1 to 3 of 2013 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2014
Advocates for Petitioner: Adv Mr. T. Pradeep
Advocate for Respondents: Mr. B. Saravanan and Mr. O. Sivakumar
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
