Madras High Court

S.Rangasamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 1 July, 2021

                                                                         W.P. No. 34351 of 2016


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS


                                             DATED: 01.07.2021

                                                   CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

                                           W.P. No. 34351 of 2016 and
                                           W.M.P. No. 29612 of 2016

                     S.Rangasamy                                          ... Petitioner

                                                          -vs-

                     1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                        Sankari, Salem District.

                     2. The Tahsildar,
                        Edappadi Taluk,
                        Salem District.

                     3. Arumugam

                     4. Rajeswari                                         ... Respondents

                     PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the
                     respondents not to include the respondents 3 & 4 in patta connection
                     with Survey Nos.387/3, 332/1A1, 372/1A2, 379/1B, 2B & 3, 387/1&2,
                     355/2, 5, 6, 8 & 9, situated at Poolampatty Village, Edappadi Taluk,
                     Salem District, on the basis of Legal Heirship Certificate in


                     1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                    W.P. No. 34351 of 2016

                     Pa.Mu.4548/2013/A1 dated 10.03.2014 issued in favour of the
                     respondents 3 & 4, by considering petitioner's representations dated
                     22.08.2016 and 07.09.2016.
                                        For Petitioner      :   Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy
                                        For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson
                                                          Counsel for Govt. for R1 & R2
                                                          Mr.T.Murugamanickam
                                                          Senior counsel for R3 & R4

                                                         ORDER

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing

the respondents not to include the respondents 3 & 4 in patta connection

with Survey Nos.387/3, 332/1A1, 372/1A2, 379/1B, 2B & 3, 387/1&2,

355/2, 5, 6, 8 & 9, situated at Poolampatty Village, Edappadi Taluk,

Salem District, on the basis of legal heirship certificate in

Pa.Mu.4548/2013/A1 dated 10.03.2014 issued in favour of the

respondents 3 & 4, by considering petitioner's representations dated

22.08.2016 and 07.09.2016.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is having lands

at his native village called Odakattur, Poolampatty Village, Idappadi

Taluk, Salem District in patta Nos.43, 497, 803, 947, 948 and 1125.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 34351 of 2016

3. In this context, the private respondents 3 and 4 are claiming

joint patta in the capacity as nephew and niece of the petitioner.

However, this possession which has been claimed by the private

respondents, was disputed by the petitioner and in this context, in order

to prevent the alleged attempt made by the third and fourth respondents

in getting the joint patta in their name in respect of the aforesaid patta

numbers, which according to the petitioner belongs to the petitioner, the

petitioner has given representations to the first respondent on 22.08.2016

and 07.09.2016. The said representations since have not been considered,

the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ

Petition.

4. Reiterating the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to issue a suitable direction to

the official respondents, especially the first respondent to pass orders on

the representations of the petitioner dated 22.08.2016 and 07.09.2016 on

merits and in accordance with law within a time frame that may be

stipulated by this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 34351 of 2016

5. Per contra, Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned Senior counsel

appearing for the third and fourth respondents contended that, the third

and fourth respondents are none other than the sister's children. In other

words, the petitioner is the maternal uncle of the third and fourth

respondents. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned

Senior counsel appearing for the private respondents has produced a

copy of the wedding invitation of the wedding of the third respondent,

where, the petitioner's name has been shown as if that, he only invited the

invitees for the marriage to be solemnized in this regard. Therefore, by

relying upon the copy of the said wedding invitation, the learned Senior

counsel submits that, the petitioner is none other than the maternal uncle

of the private respondents, i.e., R3 and R4.

6. In this context, the learned Senior counsel would further submit

that, the private respondents have got Legal Heirship Certificate dated

16.04.2013, stating that, the third and fourth respondents alone are the

legal heirs of the Venkatachalam, who died on 05.05.1981.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 34351 of 2016

7. Based on the said Legal Heirship Certificate obtained by the

private respondents, it is the apprehension of the petitioner that, with the

strength of the said Legal Heirship Certificate, the private respondents

might influence the revenue authorities to get the joint patta in the name

of the private respondents also along with the petitioner in the said patta

numbers.

8. In that context, the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit in

O.S. No. 159 of 2015 before the concerned Court, seeking for a

declaratory decree, declaring the Legal Heirship Certificate dated

16.04.2013 is null and void.

9. By citing the aforesaid development, the learned Senior counsel

would further contend that, in the said Suit, the private respondents are

the parties, where, the petitioner had already sought for declaring the

Legal Heirship Certificate as null and void. Unless and until, the issue

raised in the said Suit is decided by the Civil Court and the decree and

judgment is passed in the said Civil Suit, the petitioner cannot seek for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 34351 of 2016

keeping aside of the Legal Heirship Certificate dated 16.04.2013 given

by the revenue authorities for any lawful purpose.

10. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel would further contend

that, the present attempt made by the petitioner by filing the present Writ

Petition is nothing but creating a cause of action, simultaneously, apart

from the Suit having been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, for all these

reasons, this Writ Petition is liable to be rejected, he contended.

11. I have heard Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned counsel for the

Government appearing for the first and second respondents, who would

submit that, if at all any representation has been given by the petitioner

on 22.08.2016 followed by the second representation / remainder dated

07.09.2016, where, the petitioner sought for some relief with regard to

the issuance of patta or to cancel the patta or joint patta in the name of

the private respondents, that issue can be decided by the concerned

revenue authorities namely, first respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer

in accordance with law especially under the provisions of the Tamil

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 34351 of 2016

Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and in this case, after hearing the

petitioner as well as the private respondents, final orders would be passed

on the representations of the petitioner within a time frame that may be

stipulated by this Court.

12. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed

before this Court.

13. No doubt, there may be close relationship between the

petitioner and the private respondents, whether it is accepted or disputed,

that issue could not be gone into, at this stage by this Court in the present

Writ Petition.

14. Be that as it may, insofar as the Writ Petition, it is only seeking

for a Writ of Mandamus by way of direction to the first respondent /

Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and pass orders on merits on the

representations given by the petitioner on 22.08.2016 and 07.09.2016.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 34351 of 2016

15. In this context, even though, the learned Senior counsel

appearing for the private respondents has made the aforesaid arguments

and seeks dismissal of this Writ Petition, this Court feels that, by giving a

direction to the first respondent to decide the representations of the

petitioner as stated above, this Court is not conferring any right on the

petitioner with regard to the inter se dispute between the petitioner and

the private respondents. Moreover, what is the right of the parties to

claim legal heirship or to claim ownership of the property in question can

very well be decided by the Civil Court, where the parties already been

relegated by filing the Civil Suit referred to above.

16. Moreover, insofar as the granting of patta or cancellation of

patta is concerned, that power is vested only with the revenue authorities

within the meaning of various provisions under Tamil Nadu Patta

Passbook Act. Therefore, in this context, it is the claim of the petitioner

that, he is the exclusive owner of the property concerned as claimed by

him as various patta numbers stated in his representations, hence it is for

the petitioner to establish those aspects, when the representations are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 34351 of 2016

taken up for hearing by the first respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer

and in this context, it is open to the private respondents to establish their

rights over the property in question that they are entitled to have the joint

patta.

17. Be that as it may, the said issue can be decided by the first

respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer after giving a reasonable

opportunity of being heard to both the parties and accordingly, a decision

can be taken on the said representations within a time frame that may be

stipulated by this Court.

18. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of

this Writ Petition with the following orders:

"That there shall be a direction to the first respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and decide the representations dated 22.08.2016 and 07.09.2016 combinedly after hearing both the petitioner as well as the private respondents, i.e., R3 and R4 on merits and in accordance with law and accordingly, pass final orders thereon and communicate the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 34351 of 2016

same to both the parties within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."