Unknown vs The Special Commissioner &
2022 Latest Caselaw 9572 Mad

                                                                          W.P(MD).No.360 of 2012


                              BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                       ORDER RESERVED ON       : 18.07.2011

                                       ORDER PRONOUNDED ON :          20 .07.2022

                                                 CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                            W.P.(MD).No.360 of 2012
                                            and MP(MD).No.2 of 2012


                     1.Mohammed Sherif

                     2.Inaiyathulla

                     3.Niyamathulla

                     4.Hidhayathulla

                     5.Rahamathulla

                     6.Sherina Begum

                     7.Kadhar Mohideen

                     8.Sahupar Nisha

                     9.Fathima Begum

                     10.Rasul Maideen

                     11.Shasha Bibi

                     12.Rajitha Begum

                     13.Rassia Begum

                     14.Sabura Begum

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

                     1/9
                                                                                W.P(MD).No.360 of 2012


                     15.Hussian

                     16.Sabiyah                                               ....Petitioners

                     (All the petitioners are represented through their
                     Power Agent namely M.Krishnan)

                                                           Vs

                     1.The Special Commissioner &
                           Commissioner of Land Administration
                     Chepauk, Chennai

                     2.The District Collector
                     Tirunelveli District
                     Tirunelveli

                     3.Mohammed Roorkhan Pani

                     4.Mohammed Jaferkhan Pani                              ....Respondents

                     ( Respondents 3 & 4 are impleaded vide order dated 08.06.2022)


                     Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first
                     respondent in Rc.K1/12304/2010 dated 25.02.2011 and quash the same and
                     consequently direct the respondents to forthwith issue patta for the lands in
                     S.No.723/1 to 897, Urumankulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli
                     District.


                                  For Petitioner     : Mr.D.Venkatesh
                                  For R1& R2         : Mr.N.Muthuvijayan
                                                      Special Government Pleader
                                  For R3 & R4        : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram


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

                     2/9
                                                                                        W.P(MD).No.360 of 2012


                                                            ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by

the first respondent herein under which the request of the petitioners for grant

of Patta was rejected by the impugned order dated 25.02.2011.

2. The sixteen petitioners are being represented by their power agent.

According to the affidavit filed by the power agent, the petitioners are legal

heirs of one Misirikhan Pani. The said Misirikhan Pani was an Inamdar of

several acres of land under various survey numbers in Radhapuram Taluk,

Tirunelveli District. The said Misirikhan Pani was in enjoyment of the land

through his personal cultivation and through tenants. The petitioners have

further contended that under the Estate Abolition Act, those lands were taken

over by the Government as Ryotwari lands. Though the said Misirikhan Pani

had challenged the proceedings, he had died during the pendency of the

appeal. As the legal heirs of the Misirikhan Pani could not properly prosecute

the said appeal, the appeal was decided in favour of the Government.

3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the year 1996,

the Government had erroneously classified the lands of Misirikhan Pani as

Government poromboke. The petitioners had made an application to the

second respondent herein challenging the said classification and requesting https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD).No.360 of 2012

the grant of patta. However, the second respondent by his order dated

06.02.2009, had rejected the said request on the ground that the objections

should have been raised within a period of three years after classification has

been made. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the first respondent herein.

Though the petitioners have produced documents and the written

submissions, the first respondent had passed the impugned order on

25.02.2011 rejecting the request of the writ petitioners. Hence, the present

writ petition.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the

petitioners are the legal heirs of one Misirikhan Pani who was the original

owner of the properties and due to efflux of time, the documents are not

traceable. The learned counsel had further contended that a perusal of 'A'

register will clearly show that the said Misirikhan Pani was the original

owner of the properties.

5.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents impleaded

the respondents namely respondents 3 and 4 contended that the writ

petitioners are not the legal heirs of the said Misirikhan Pani. They are the

children of Misirikhan Pani through his concubine Muthu Goundachi @

Shafiya Begum. The eldest son of the said Muthu Goundachi @ Shafiya https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD).No.360 of 2012

Begum by name Karim Khan Pani Saheeb filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 1961

against Mohammed Shafi Khan S/o. Misirikhan Pani through his wife

Meharunisha Begum on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli. Whether the

said Shafiya Begum was the legally wedded wife or not was the main issue in

the said suit. The Court ultimately found that Shafiya Begum is not the

legally wedded wife of Misirikhan Pani. According to the learned counsel for

the respondents, the descendants of Muthu Goundachi @ Shafiya Begum

cannot make any claim over the properties of the Misirikhan Pani as his legal

heirs. He had further contended that the petitioners 1 to 5 in the writ petition

are the legal heirs of one Rajitha Begum who is none other than the daughter

of Muthu Goundachi @ Shafiya Begum. Petitioners 8 and 9 are the

grandchildren of one Basheer Khan who is none other than the son of Muthu

Goundachi @ Shafiya Begum. The 12th petitioner is the daughter of Muthu

Goundachi @ Shafiya Begum. The other petitioners namely 6, 7, 10, 11 and

13 to 16 are not known to them. Hence, according to the learned counsel for

the petitioners, the mother of the petitioners 1 to 5 herein was already

declared to be not the legal heir of the said Misirikhan Pani.

6.The learned counsel for the respondents had further contended that

around 70% of the properties for which Patta is now claimed by the writ

petitioner is the property of one Khanmian Pallivasal. The title of the said https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD).No.360 of 2012

Khanmian Pallivasal was disputed by the Tamil Nadu Government

contending that it is the Government poromboke. Hence, the said Pallivasal

had filed O.S.No.299 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli. In the said

suit, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board was arrayed as the second defendant. The suit

came to be decreed as prayed for on 18.08.2016. The trial Court had relied

upon the proforma report of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and arrived at a

finding that it is a Wakf property. The said order has been challenged by the

Government in CRP.No.2161 of 2018 and the same is pending. Hence,

viewed from any angle, the property does not belong to the petitioners.

Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official

respondents had contended that the property is not the Wakf property and it is

the Government poromboke and the issue is now pending in CRP.No.2161 of

2018.

8.I have considered the submissions made on either side.

9.In Paragraph No.2 of the writ petition, the writ petitioners have made

a claim to the property in dispute, only as legal heirs of Misirikhan Pani.

However, they have not explained in what manner they are related to the

original owner namely Misirikhan Pani. The documents filed on the side of

the respondents especially the judgment in O.S.No.65 of 9161 will disclose https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD).No.360 of 2012

that the mother of the petitioners herein has been declared that she is not the

legally wedded wife of Misirikhan Pani. In the decree in O.S.No.299 of 2011,

the Civil Court has held that the properties belong to Pallivasal. In the

impugned order, the first respondent herein has categorically found that the

writ petitioners have not proved their entitlement over the lands in question

under relevant provisions of the Act 26 of 1963 to get patta. Though they did

not get Patta under the Act, it was open to them to file an appeal before the

Tribunal constituted under Act 26 of 1963 within a period of three months.

However, they have not approached the Tribunal also. The authorities have

categorically found that the claim is barred by limitation and preferred before

a wrong forum. The authorities have proceeded to arrive at a finding that the

claimant is trying to play fraud before the forum by producing a counterfeit

'A' register of Urumankulam Village. With the above said findings, the claim

of the petitioners for grant of patta has been rejected under the impugned

order.

10.In view of the two Civil Courts judgments, the petitioners have not

established their legal status and the character of the property for which they

are attempting to get Patta. That apart, the findings of the first respondent

herein clearly points out that the petitioners are attempting to hoodwink the

authorities and trying to get Patta.

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

W.P(MD).No.360 of 2012

11.I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition stands

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

20 .07.2022

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No msa

To

1.The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai

2.The District Collector Tirunelveli District Tirunelveli

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

W.P(MD).No.360 of 2012

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

msa

Pre-delivery order made in

W.P.(MD).No.360 of 2012 and MP(MD).No.2 of 2012

20.07.2022

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