Madras High Court
K.P. Pandian vs The Tahsildar on 6 September, 2021
1 W.P.No.18611 of
2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P. No. 18611 of 2021
K.P. Pandian ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Tahsildar,
Office of The Tahsildar,
Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
2. The Head Surveyor,
Office of The Head Surveyor,
Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
3.The Surveyor,
Office of The Surveyor,
Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents
to forthwith effect sub-division of the lands of the Petitioner measuring 32
Cents in Survey No 112/2, at Vinaitheerthapuram Village, Kallakurichi
Taluk, Kallakurichi District, and issue separate Patta to the Petitioner by
considering and passing necessary orders on the application of the Petitioner
dated 19.7.2021 and pass orders accordingly.
For Petitioner :: Mr. K.Selvaraj
For Respondents :: Mr. K.M.D. Muhilan
(Government Advocate)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 W.P.No.18611 of
2021
*****
ORDER
The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the
Respondents to forthwith effect sub-division of the lands of the Petitioner
measuring 32 Cents in Survey No 112/2, at Vinaitheerthapuram Village,
Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District, and issue separate Patta to the
Petitioner by considering and passing necessary orders on the Application of
the Petitioner dated 19.7.2021 and pass orders accordingly
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
Petitioner has purchased land measuring 32 Cents in Survey No.112/2, at
Vinaitheerthapuram Village, Kallakurichi District, by a Registered Sale
Deed 29.3.2012, in document No. 1432 of 2012 from one K.Ramesh and K.
Periasamy. In fact, the said Vendor of the Petitioner, namely, K Ramesh,
had purchased the said property by a Sale Deed dated 11.4.2007 from one
Kandasamy Gounder, by a Document No.1037 of 2007. The said
Kandasamy Gounder had purchased the said property from one Athiyappa
Gounder by a Registered Sale Deed dated 23.4.2003 in Document No.725 of
2003. The 2nd Vendor of the Petitioner namely, K Periasamy has purchased
the said property by a Registered Sale Deed dated 27.7.2010 in Document
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No.3653 of 2010.
3. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the brother of the said Kandasamy Gounder, namely, K.
Periasamy has filed a Civil Suit against Athiyappa Gounder and his brother
Kandasamy Gounder in OS No 318 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional
District Munsif Court, Kallakurchi, claiming that he is the absolute owner of
the entire extent of 6.86 Acres of lands in Survey No.112/2. After an
elaborate trial, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit on 13.07.2006 stating
that the land measuring 32 Cents out of 6 Acres and 86 Cents in Survey No.
112/2 belongs to Athiyappa Gounder, having purchased the same by way of
a Registered Sale Deed on 9.3.1971. Therefore, the Plaintiff has no title over
the 32 Cents of lands in Survey No 112/2, and it belongs absolutely to
Kandasamy Gounder, the 2nd Defendant, who is the parent- Vendor of the
Petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal order, the said
K Periasamy has filed an Appeal Suit in A.S No 125 of 2006 on the file of
the Sub-Court, Kallakurichi. After hearing both sides, the First Appeal was
also dismissed on 26.7.2010. The Judgment and Decree in A.S No 125 of
2006 has become final.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the said K Periasamy has submitted an Application before the Revenue
Divisional Officer to cancel the Joint Patta in Survey No 112/2 against the
decisions of the Civil Courts and to retain his name for the entire property.
The Petitioner has also participated in the enquiry and submitted all the
Documents and the Court Judgments and Decrees before the Revenue
Divisional Officer. After an elaborate enquiry, the Revenue Divisional
Officer, by an order dated 13.2.2017 has rejected the claim of the said
K. Periasamy in Survey No 112/2. Being aggrieved by order of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, K Periasamy has filed a Revision before the District
Revenue Officer, Kallakurichi wherein the Petitioner has also participated in
the Enquiry before the District Revenue Officer and submitted all the
Documents and the Court Judgments and Decrees before District Revenue
Officer. After an elaborate enquiry, the District Revenue Officer by order
dated 31.12.2020 has rejected the Revision Petition filed by K Periasamy
for grant of separate Patta in respect of Survey No.112/2.
5. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has purchased
the land measuring 32 Cents in Survey No 112/2, from the real
owners/vendors as per Judgment and Decree passed by the Civil Courts and
the same was also accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Revenue Officer. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has submitted an
application dated 19.7.2021 to the 1st Respondent requesting to sub-divide
the land measuring 32 Cents from the original Survey No.112/2, and to issue
separate Patta to the petitioner herein. Though the 1st Respondent has
received the same, the 1st Respondent has not processed the said
Application of the Petitioner for more than one month without any
justification and for a mala-fide reason. The actions of the 1st Respondent is
totally arbitrary, unreasonable and against the Title Deeds of the Petitioner
herein and the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No 318 of 2003 and the
Judgment and Decree in A.S.No. 125 of 2006. It is also against the order of
the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 13.2.2017 and the order of the District
Revenue Officer dated 31.12.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is left with no
other alternative and efficacious remedy except to approach this Court by
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of
India. Hence, this Writ petition.
6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
would submit that the application has been filed by the petitioner herein only
on 19.07.2021. However, the respondents may be directed to consider his
application within a time frame as fixed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents as well as perused the
material available on records.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and
submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the 1st respondent
is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application dated
19.07.2021 filed by the petitioner herein after affording sufficient
opportunity to the petitioner herein within a period of four months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law.
9. In the result, the Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed if any. No Costs.
06.09.2021
Lbm
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1. The Tahsildar,
Office of The Tahsildar,
Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
2. The Head Surveyor,
Office of The Head Surveyor,
Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
3.The Surveyor,
Office of The Surveyor,
Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.,J
Lbm
W.P. No.18611 of 2021
06.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
