K.Arunagiri vs The Tahsildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2535 Mad

                                                                           W.P.No. 3948 of 2013

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 04.02.2021

                                                     CORAM
                                    THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

                                               W.P. No. 3948 of 2013
                1.K.Arunagiri
                2.N.Periyasamy
                3.K.P.Chinnasamy                                               ... Petitioners
                                                       Vs
                1.The Tahsildar,
                  Sathyamangalam Taluk,
                  Sathyamangalam,
                  Erode District.

                2.The District Collector,
                  Erode District,
                  Erode – 638 011.

                3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
                  Highways Department,
                  Sathyamangalam,
                  Erode District.                                              ... Respondents

                PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
                pertaining to the order dated 12.11.2012 made in Na.Ka.No.7849/2011/A1
                passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the
                Respondents 1 and 2 to carry out mutation of records in the name of the
                petitioners in respect of the property measuring 0.09.50 Hec., comprised in
                R.S.No.425/2 Sathyamangalam Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District
                by considering the petitioners' representation dated 26.05.2011, 24.01.2012 and
                05.03.2012 respectively.
                              For Petitioners          : Mr.N.Manokaran
                              For Respondents          : Ms.A.Madhumathi
                                                         Special Government Pleader.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                1/6
                                                                                 W.P.No. 3948 of 2013

                                                      ORDER

This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash

the proceedings of the first respondent viz., Tahsildar, Sathyamangalam Taluk,

Erode District in Na.Ka.No.7849/2011/A1, dated 12.11.2012 and consequently,

to direct the first and second respondents to carry out mutation of records in the

name of the petitioners in respect of the property measuring 0.09.5 Hectares,

comprised in R.S.No.425/2, Sathyamangalam Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk,

Erode District by considering the petitioners' representations dated 26.05.2011,

24.11.2012 and 05.03.2012.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the property

measuring to an extent of 0.09.5 Hectares comprised in S.F.No.425/2,

Sathyamangalam Village, Erode District, was the ancestral property originally

owned by Tvl.M.N.Krishna Rao and M.N.Suseendran. It is stated that the

petitioners' property is located on the eastern side of the Travelers Bungalow

belongs to the third respondent.

3. It appears that there was some dispute in respect of the property

belong to the petitioners and the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest have filed a

suit in O.S.No.16 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No. 3948 of 2013

Sathyamangalam for declaration of their title to the suit property and for

consequential permanent injunction. The suit after full fledged trial, was

decreed as prayed for by judgement and decree dated 07.03.1995. As against

the same, the respondents have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2007 on the

file of the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam. The First Appellate Court by its

judgment dated 01.10.1997 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the

respondents. Against which, the plaintiffs namely predecessor-in-interest of the

petitioners have preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No.1766 of 1998 and the

respondents have preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No.1502 of 1998.

4. It is admitted before this Court that the Second Appeal preferred by

the petitioners predecessor-in-interest namely the plaintiffs in S.A.No.1766 of

1998 was allowed and the Second Appeal in S.A.No. 1502 of 1998 preferred by

the respondents/dependents was dismissed. Thus, the Civil Court has declared

the title in favour of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest. It is stated that

Special Leave Petitions in SLP (C) Nos.2432 and 2433 of 2015 have been

preferred by the respondents and now it is admitted that by order dated

16.02.2015 the said Special Leave Petitions were also disposed of in favour of

the petitioners. Based on the Civil Court decree, it is admitted before this Court

that one Uthirasamy has purchased the property from the original owner under

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No. 3948 of 2013

a sale deed dated 02.06.1995 and that the said Uthirasamy conveyed title in

favour of the petitioners. When the petitioners submitted a representation to the

second respondent to carry out necessary changes in the revenue records, by the

impugned order dated 12.11.2012, the first respondent has rejected the request

only on the ground that the third respondent proposed to file Special Leave

Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as against the judgment and decree

dated 29.10.2010 in S.A.Nos.1502 and 1766 of 1998 passed by this Court and

that therefore, the proceedings should be kept in abeyance. The order of the

first respondent dated 12.11.2012 is challenged before this Court.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader on instructions conceded that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dismissed Special Leave Petitions in SLP (C)

Nos.2432 and 2433 of 2015 preferred by the respondents as against the

judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 in S.A.Nos.1502 and 1766 of 1998

passed by this Court. It is now admitted before this Court that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has upheld the title in favour of petitioners predecessor-in-

interest.

6. In such circumstances, the petitioners have purchased the property

from the original owner and entitled to derive the title. The modification of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No. 3948 of 2013

revenue records as per the sale deed and the Civil Court decree is mandatory by

virtue of specific provisions under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983.

The impugned order refusing to entertain the application for modification of

entries in favour of the petitioners, is contrary to the provisions of the Act and

the modification of entries, cannot be stalled unless the decree is set aside or

modified by a competent Court.

7. Having regard to the admitted fact, this Court has no hesitation to hold

title in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners are entitled to seek

modification of entries in the revenue records in view of the subsequent sale in

favour of the petitioners. The petitioners also entitled to succeed and the

impugned order in Na.Ka.No.7849/2011/A1, dated 12.11.2012 passed by the

first respondent/Tahsildar, is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The

modification of entries shall be done as per decree within a period of six weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

04.02.2021

Index:Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order dm

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No. 3948 of 2013

S.S.SUNDAR. J., dm

To

1.The Tahsildar, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.

2.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode – 638 011.

3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.

W.P. No.3948 of 2013

04.02.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/