Madras High Court
M.Natarajan vs The Tahsildhar on 29 October, 2021
1 W.P. No.23281 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P. No.23281 of 2021
M.Natarajan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Tahsildhar,
Sendurai Taluk,
Sendurai & Post,
Ariyalur District.
2. A.Velayutham
3. S.Jayabal ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Ist
respondent to consider the representations dated 10.08.2020 and
11.08.2021 for the transfer of the Patta in respect of the lands in SF. No.
145/4 measuring an extent of 0.50.0 Ares and SF No.145/6 measuring an
extent of 0.25.0 Ares of Namangunam Village, Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 W.P. No.23281 of 2021
District in terms of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S No.238/2010
dated 23.08.2017 on the file of Additional District Munsif Ariyalur as
confirmed in A.S. No. 44 of 2017 dated 03.04.2019 on the file of Sub-
Judge, Ariyalur and pass orders accordingly.
For Petitioner :: Mr. S.Kamadevan
For Respondent-1 :: Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
(Government Advocate)
For Respondents-2&3 :: No Appearance
*****
ORDER
The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the Ist
respondent to consider the representations dated 10.08.2020 and
11.08.2021 for the transfer of the Patta in respect of the lands in SF. No.
145/4 measuring an extent of 0.50.0 Ares and SF No.145/6 measuring an
extent of 0.25.0 Ares of Namangunam Village, Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur
District in terms of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S No.238/2010
dated 23.08.2017 on the file of Additional District Munsif Ariyalur as
confirmed in A.S. No. 44 of 2017 dated 03.04.2019 on the file of Sub-
Judge, Ariyalur and pass orders accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner's father Thiru. Murugesa Asari (late) purchased the lands in SF
Nos.145/4 and 145/6 measuring total extent of 0.75.0 Ares,
Namangunam Village, Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District through a
registered sale deed dated 08.11.1973. After the death of the petitioner's
father, the petitioner and his elder brother one Karuppan and sister,
Tmt.Dhanalakshmi are in possession and enjoying the same as the legal
heirs by intestate succession. While so, the 2nd respondent seems to have
produced bogus documents and false representations before the Ist
respondent and got Patta under the UDR scheme. On the strength of the
same, he filed suit in O.S. No. 238 of 2010, on the file of Additional
District Munsif, Ariyalur seeking for declaration and permanent
injunction against the petitioner and other two family members wherein
his claim was that the lands in question were orally assigned to him by
the Government thirty years ago and on the strength of the same, he is in
possession and also got Patta accordingly. The above suit was resisted by
the petitioner along with his family members contending that the second
respondent has no right or title over the said properties. The learned
District Munsif after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
categorically held that the petitioner and his brother and sister are the
title holders and the second respondent has no right over the suit property
and dismissed the suit by the elaborate Judgment and Decree dated
23.08.2017.
3. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that as against the said judgment, the second respondent
preferred A.S. No 44 of 2017 on the file of Sub-Ordinate Judge, Ariyalur
and the appellate court also confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the
trial court on 03.04.2019. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has not
proceeded for any revision or Appeal against the aforesaid order and
thereby the Civil court decree passed with respect to the above properties
has become final. While being so, the second respondent seems to have
settled the properties in question in favour his grandson/3rd respondent
herein on 16.02.2020 to defeat the petitioner's right and title over the said
properties.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
in order to mutation of revenue records in the name of the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
other two family members, based on the said judgment and Decree as
confirmed in the appeal, the petitioner had made representation dated
10.08.2020 to the first respondent for the transfer of Patta enclosing the
Judgments of the Civil Courts and the same was duly acknowledged.
However, there was no response or reply probably due to the Covid-19
pandemic. Again the petitioner has made representation dated 11.08.2021
to the 1st respondent and on receipt of the same, the petitioner has got
intimation dated 12.08.2021 stating that the same has been forwarded to
the Deputy Tahsildhar to submit his report after enquiry . Thereafter,
there is no further progress on the representation dated 11.08.2021 made
by the petitioner herein.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the section
10 of the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 which read as follows:
"10. Modification of entries in the Patta pass book. -
(1) Where any person claims that any modification is
required in respect of any entry in the Patta pass book
already issued under section 3 either by reason of the
death of any person or by the reason of the transfer of the
land or by reason of any other subsequent change in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
circumstances, he shall make an application to the
Thasildhar for the modification of the relevant entries in
the Patta pass book.
2) An application under sub-section (1) shall contain
such particulars, as may be prescribed, and shall be
accompanied by the documents, if any, relied on by the
applicant as evidence in support of his claim.
3)Before passing an order on an application under
sub-section (1), the Thasildhar shall follow such procedure
as may be prescribed and shall also give a reasonable
opportunity to the parties concerned to make their
representations either orally or in writing. If the
Thasildhar decides that any modification should be made
in respect of entries in the Patta passbook, he shall pass an
order accordingly and shall make such consequential
changes in the Patta pass book, as appear to him to be
necessary, for giving effect to his order.
(b) If the Thasildhar decides that there is no case for
effecting any modification of the entries in the Patta pass
book, he shall reject the application.
(c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall
contain the reasons for such order and shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
communicated to the parties concerned in such manner as
may be prescribed"
According to the aforesaid Section, the 1st respondent has a statutory
duty to effect the modification of the entries due to change of such
circumstances. Even though the petitioner has given representations
dated 10.08.2020 and 11.08.2021 for the transfer of Patta in respect of
the lands in SF. No. 145/4 measuring an extent of 0.50.0 Ares and SF
No.145/6 measuring an extent of 0.25.0 Ares of Namangunam Village,
Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District in terms of the Judgment and Decree
passed in O.S No.238/2010 dated 23.08.2017 on the file of Additional
District Munsif Ariyalur as confirmed in A.S. No. 44 of 2017 dated
03.04.2019 on the file of Sub-Judge, Ariyalur, the 1st respondent has
neither conducted any enquiry in this regard nor passed any order on his
representations, hence, he is left with no other alternative and efficacious
remedy except to approach this Court by invoking its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution of India for a direction to the 1st respondent
as prayed for in this Writ petition.
6. The learned Government Advocate for the 1st respondent would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submit that while the Civil Courts have categorically held that the right,
title and interest of the property in question is belonged to the petitioner
and his brother and sister, the 2nd respondent has settled the property in
question in favour of the 3rd respondent. Under such circumstances, the
1st respondent may be directed to conduct the enquiry in this regard and
pass orders in accordance with law within a time frame as fixed by this
Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate for the 1st respondent as well as perused the
material available on records.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and
submissions of the learned counsel for both sides, this Court without
expressing any opinion with regard to the merit of the case, directs the 1st
respondent to consider the representations dated 10.08.2020 and
11.08.2021 of the petitioner herein and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order after affording sufficient opportunity to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
parties concerned.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ petition is disposed of
accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed if
any. There shall be no order as to costs.
29.10.2021
Lbm
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To:
The Tahsildhar,
Sendurai Taluk,
Sendurai & Post,
Ariyalur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN., J.
Lbm
W.P. No.23281 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
