Madras High Court
V.Pandianrajan vs The District Collector on 7 July, 2023
W.P(MD)No.15259 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.15259 of 2014
V.Pandianrajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Office of Collectorate,
Madurai District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai District, Madurai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Madurai District, Madurai.
4.The Tahsildar,
Madurai East,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
5.S.Rajendran
6.S.Yoga Rajan ... Respondents
(R5 & R6 are impleaded vide order dated
22.01.2015 in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 in
W.P.(MD)No.15259 of 2014 by BRJ)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15259 of 2014
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to change patta in the name of the petitioner in
Survey No.73/67 to an extent of 1.18500 Ares in Illangiendal,
Puthuthamarai Patti (post), Madurai District and to effect necessary
changes in Field Measurement Book (FMB) sketch within the time
stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar,
Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R4.
Mr.J.Anandkumar for R6.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional
Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel
for the sixth respondent.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the land comprised in
S.No.73/67 measuring 0.18500 ares in Illangiendal, Puthuthamarai Patti
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15259 of 2014
Village, Madurai East Taluk should be mutated in his name. According
to the petitioner, his brother / Rajan was the original pattadar. Rajan had
sold the property in favour of one Chellapandian vide sale deed dated
21.08.2002. From the said Chellapandian, the petitioner had purchased
the property 27.01.2010. The petitioner has been representing to the
Tahsildar for mutation of patta since 2012. Since the petitioner's request
was not considered, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3.When the matter was taken up final hearing, it was submitted
that mutation had already been made on 18.04.2023 in favour of the
petitioner in RTR No.1431 of 2023. In normal circumstances, this Court
would have closed the writ petition as infrcutuous by recording this
development.
4.However, there was stiff opposition from the learned Additional
Government Pleader for the official respondents as well as the learned
counsel for the sixth respondent. It is seen from the entries in the
Natham Adangal Register that S.No.73/37 measuring around 12 cents has
been classified as school. A panchayat school building is very much in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15259 of 2014
existence even as on date. Whileso, the petitioner staked claim over the
land comprised in S.No.73/67. The Assistant Section Officer,
Madurai-20 issued proceedings in Nu.Mu.No.6574/96 dated 30.07.1996
calling upon the Special Tahsildar (Natham), Madurai North to issue
proceedings in favour of the petitioner's brother / V.Rajan over an extent
of 185 square metres in S.No.73/37 as he is residing therein. Pursuant to
the said direction, the Special Tahsildar (Natham), Madurai North
conducted enquiry and issued direction dated 04.04.1997 directing the
Tahsildar, Madurai North to issue patta in favour of the petitioner's
brother. Purusuant thereto in RT No.279/97-98 patta in favour of Rajan,
the brother of the petitioner was issued in S.No.73/67 for 185 square
meters. Though on record, mutation had already been effected in favour
of the petitioner's brother and the petitioner's brother had sold the said
property in favour of Chellapandian in the year 2002, the petitioner could
not succeed in his efforts to get mutation in his favour after purchase of
property from Chellapandian.
5.That was because the sixth respondent herein had been raising
objection that the petitioner is attempting to encroach on the school
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15259 of 2014
property. The petitioner and his siblings filed O.S.No.191 of 2007 before
the District Musnif Court, Madurai Taluk. The sixth respondent herein
was shown as the first defendant in the said suit. The deceased fifth
respondent was shown as the second defendant. The private respondents
herein filed written statement controverting the claim putforth by the
petitioner's family. The petitioner's brother was examined as P.W.1. As
many as ten documents were marked. The pattas issued in favour of the
petitioner's brother were marked as Exs.B1 and B2. The sixth respondent
examined himself as D.W.1. Three other witnesses were examined on the
side of the defendants. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed and
his report and plan as well as the survey sketch were marked Exs.C1 to
C3. After an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, the
learned Trial Munsif vide judgment dated 27.08.2014 rendered a
categorical finding that there is no land corresponding to S.No.73/67 on
ground. The Civil Court had declared that the property claimed by the
petitioner under the aforesaid said pattas is non-existent. Aggrieved by
the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed A.S.No.28 of 2015 on
the file of Sub Court, Madurai. The appeal suit is still pending.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15259 of 2014
6.In this background, I fail to understand as to how mutation could
have been made in favour of the petitioner in the Natham Adangal
Register in April 2023, that too when the writ petition is pending. Of
course, pendency of the writ petition will not tie the hands of the
authorities from acting in the matter. But when the Civil Court has
rendered a finding that the land said to correspond to S.No.73/67 is
non-existent, the revenue authority could not acted contrary to it. The
Village Administrative Officer / Ms.Murugalakshmi is present in person.
I posed a direct question to her as to how she made the mutation. The
explanation given by the Village Administrative Officer does not
convince me. It is obvious that even without conducting field inspection,
the mutation had been made. I would have directed the District
Collector, Madurai to take departmental against the Village
Administrative Officer. The Village Administrative Officer states that
she has realized her mistake and that she would take immediate steps for
cancelling the mutation made in favour of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15259 of 2014
7.I refrain from issuing any direction to the first respondent to take
action against the Village Administrative Officer in view of the
undertaking now given before this Court. The Village Administrative
Officer is warned to be careful in future. If any application for mutation
of patta is made, field inspection must be conducted and all the relevant
records must be verified. In this case, the Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk
had filed counter affidavit stating that the entry made in the Natham
Register relating to S.No.73/67 was illegal. This was because the natham
settlement scheme was closed in the year 1995 itself. Therefore, in the
year 1996, the Special Tahsildar (Natham Settlement) could not have
issued any direction. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk as
well as the Village Administrative Officer could not have acted contrary
to the said stand taken in the counter affidavit filed before this Court. At
this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would work
out his rights before the Civil Court in A.S.No.28 of 2015.
8.The matter cannot be left at that. The petitioner has to
necessarily implead the Education Department as well as the District
Collector, Madurai in the pending appeal suit. The First Appellate Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15259 of 2014
shall not take up the appeal suit for disposal unless the Education
Department as well as the District Collector, Madurai are impleaded as
respondents. Since the entire evidence is available before the First
Appellate Court, it may not necessary to even remand the matter after
they are impleaded.
9.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
07.07.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15259 of 2014
To:-
1.The District Collector,
Office of Collectorate,
Madurai District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai District, Madurai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Madurai District, Madurai.
4.The Tahsildar,
Madurai East,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15259 of 2014
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.15259 of 2014
07.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
