Madras High Court
C. Thangamuthu (Deceased) vs The District Collector on 27 October, 2021
W.P.No.617 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No.617 of 2021
1.C. Thangamuthu (Deceased)
2.D.Vedhanayaki,
3.D.Nivedita,
4.D.Nitheshkumar, ... Petitioners
[ Petitioners 2 to 4 substituted as the
legal heirs of the deceased sole petitioner
vide order dated 20.07.2021 made in
WMP.No.15705 of 2021 in W.P.No.617 of 2021]
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Thiruppur, Thiruppur District.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruppur, Thiruppur District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruppur, Thiruppur District.
4. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office (North), Thiruppur,
Thiruppur District. ... Respondents
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.617 of 2021
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent
to include the petitioner's name in Patta No.10701 and revenue records in
respect of land in S.Nos.755 and 756 at Thottiyampalayam Village,
Tiruppur North Taluk.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Elango
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Government Advocate.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent/Tahsildar to include the
petitioner's name in Patta No.10701 and in the Revenue Records with
respect to land in S.Nos.755 and 756 at Thottiyampalayam Village,
Tiruppur North Taluk.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the agricultural
land in S.No.755 measuring to an extent of 9.89 acres (half share) and in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.617 of 2021
S.No.756 measuring to an extent of 4.47 acres (half share) at
Thottiyapalayam Village, Thiruppur North Taluk from one
T.P.Palanisamy for valid consideration of Rs.1,73,750.00/- by virtue of
registered sale deed in Document No.12684 of 1994, dated 16.12.1994,
and thereafter, Joint Patta No.10701 was also issued in favour of the first
petitioner along with 8 others. Thereafter, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar of
Thiruppur had passed a proceeding in Ni.Mu.RTR.1291/10/A4, dated
30.04.2010, directing the Town Sub-Inspector and Village Administrative
Officer to change all the Revenue Records in favour of the petitioner
with respect to the above said lands. As per the above said proceedings,
all the Revenue Records were mutated in the name of the petitioner.
Eventhough joint patta was issued in his name as his vendor sold the
above said land to the petitioner, as per the partition ordered in
O.S.No.90 of 1943 and in I.A.No.589 of 1946. After purchasing the
properties, the petitioner is in continuous peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the same by paying all the necessary taxes to the Village
Administrative Officer, Thottiyapalayam. While so, the respondents had
removed his name from all the Revenue Records without giving any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.617 of 2021
notice to the petitioner. On verification, the petitioner came to know that
his name has been removed in Patta No.10701. Thereafter, he gave an
application to the 4th respondent dated 15.11.2012 under Right to
Information Act, seeking for information as to how his name was deleted
in the Revenue Records without giving any prior notice and conducting
an enquiry. Thereafter, the Deputy Tahsildar of Thiruppur has given an
information in proceeding in Na.Ka,No.10304/12/A6, dated 28.11.2012
in which, the following reasons has been given for deleting the name of
the petitioner in the Revenue Records.
(i) As per letter of Commissioner of Land
Administration, Chennai in letter No.K4/19240/2011
dated 19.09.2011.
(ii)As per letter of District Revenue Officer in
Na.Ka.16822/2011/J1 dated 04.10.2011.
(iii) As per legal heir certificate in 12468/98
dated 16.1.1998.
(iv) As per the patta transfer order in 8347/2011.
3. According to the petitioner, he was a party in the above said
proceedings but he was not participated in the enquiry before passing the
same and that there is no specific order to the effect that the petitioner's
name should be deleted from the Patta No.10701. Therefore, the
petitioner made a representation dated 18.11.2019 to the 1st respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.617 of 2021
to include his name in the patta and the same was forwarded to the 3rd
respondent for taking necessary action, the 3rd respondent in his
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3591/2019/A2 dated 23.11.2019 had written a
letter to the 4th respondent asking to furnish whether the petitioner's
name was in patta earlier or his name was deleted as per the order of the
2nd respondent or his name was deleted mistakenly. Since his name was
deleted in the said patta mistakenly, the 4th respondent did not give any
reply to the 3rd respondent, as per his letter dated 23.11.2019. The 4th
respondent himself ought to have included his name in the Revenue
Records as there was no notice at the time of deleting his name given.
Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit, it is seen that only after enquiry,
the 2nd respondent has passed an order in Na.KaNo.5521/2006/E2 dated
25.09.2008 directing the parties therein to approach the proper Civil
Court to redress their grievance in respect of the above said properties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.617 of 2021
Subsequently, a review petition was filed by S.N.S.Sugumaran dated
14.07.2011, the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai. in his
letter No.K4/19240/2011 dated 19.09.2011 stating that even though the
2nd respondent passed an order dated 25.09.2008 in
Na.Ka.No.5521/2006/E2, directing the parties to approach the competent
Civil Court is not justified since the matter had already been decided by
the Apex Court in favour of S.N.S.Sukumaran and thereby the
Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, directed the 2nd
respondent to give suitable direction to the Tahsildar, Tirupur to take
necessary action as per the Civil Court judgments mentioned in the
Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration's order
dated 20.11.2002 in K4/31080/02 dated 20.11.2002 in K4/31082/02 and
the District Revenue Officer's order dated 05.02.2001 in
R.R(R.P.)/12/99/E2 was passed as per the Revenue Standing Order 31(4).
5. As the order of the Commissioner of Land Administration was
accepted by the 2nd respondent vide letter in
Ne.Mu.Na.Ka.16822/2011./J1 dated 04.10.2011 directed the 4th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.617 of 2021
respondent to modify the revenue records and directed him to send the
copies of the modified records to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd
respondent vide his order in Na.Ka.No.8347/2011 dated..02.2012 made
endorsements in the revenue records and the patta No.10701 has been
issued to the above said S.N.S.Sugumaran and others. On a Patta Appeal
Proceedings, the 3rd respondent after going thorough the documents filed
by the concerned parties, appeared for an inquiry, various orders of
Revenue authorities and judgments of civil courts had passed an order in
Na.Ka.No.4852/2018/A2 dated 31.07.2019 observing that since there are
several persons claiming right over the property who has no valid and
relevant documents to show that the claimants are having right and title
to the same as the property is not in use for a long period. The right of the
property is in dispute as there is no specific declaration about who are the
owner of the property, all the parties concerned were directed to approach
the competent Civil Court. It is also pointed out that except
S.N.S.Sukumaran who filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent on
30.08.2019 against the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated
31.07.2019 and the same was numbered as Na.Ka.No.21953/2017/J1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.617 of 2021
and the same is pending for consideration. Meanwhile, one of the
affected parties namely R.Lakshmi filed two writ petition Nos.25368 and
29211 of 2019 before this Court and the same is pending for adjudication
and stay has been granted by this Court in W.M.P.Nos.24914 and 25368
of 2019 dated 29.08.2019. As submitted by the petitioner, the 1st
respondent was approached by way of a representation to include his
name in the patta and the same was forwarded to the 3rd respondent, but
the 3rd respondent in turn forwarded the same to the 4th respondent and
he submitted a detailed reply to the 3rd respondent as per letter
No.2250/2019/A2 dated 16.09.2020 along with the connected records.
Though the petitioner's representation is still pending before the 3rd
respondent because of the stay already granted by this Court, since there
are several persons claiming right over the properties in question, a Sale
Deed registered as Document No.12684 of 1994 dated 16.12.1994 on the
file of the Sub Registrar, Parasala, Kerala, but not registered on the
jurisdictional Sub-Registrar's Office. However, his vendor had obtained
the property by virtue of a Partition suit in O.S.No.90 of 1943 on the file
of the learned District Munsif, Coimbatore, and the final decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.617 of 2021
application in I.A.No.589 of 1946. But the petitioner has not produced
the copies of the same to prove his bonafide claim before the 3rd
respondent at the time of enquiry. If the petitioner produce the relevant
documents to prove his bonafide claim, the same would be considered
and orders will be passed, in accordance with the law.
6. Heard both side and perused the records.
7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that this Court had observed
that under UDR scheme, some strangers name were inserted, for which
purpose, the petitioner moved the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove
the names of the strangers in the Revenue Records/Patta. The Revenue
Divisional Officer, after due enquiry has deleted the names of the
strangers. Aggrieved persons, challenged the same by way of an appeal
before the District Revenue Officer and it came to be confirmed. Since
this order was not given effect, he again moved the Authority (Revenue
Divisional Officer), who directed the Tahsildar to delete the name of the
wrong persons from the Revenue Records/Patta. In giving effect to that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.617 of 2021
direction, the Tahsildar has removed the names not only the strangers, but
also the petitioner from the Revenue Records/Patta. Aggrieved by the
above action, the writ petition is filed.
8. Having regard to the limited scope of the prayer that is now
sought for in this writ petition before this Court and taking into account
the submissions made on either side, the Writ Petition is disposed of,
with a direction to the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent/Revenue
Divisional Officer herein to rectify the mistake or error committed along
with relevant documents to substantiate his claim that he is the owner of
the property and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance
with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner and necessary parties concerned within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
27.10.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.617 of 2021
To
1. The District Collector,
Thiruppur,
Thiruppur District.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruppur,
Thiruppur District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruppur,
Thiruppur District.
4. The Tashildar,
Taluk Office (North),
Thiruppur,
Thiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.617 of 2021
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
gba/msm
W.P.No.617 of 2021
27.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
