Madras High Court
Annakunju vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 5 August, 2024
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T.Asha
W.P(MD)No.10351 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P(MD)No.10351 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.9323, 9324 & 14147 of 2024
1.Annakunju
2.C.Nagaraj
3.T.Suriya Dheepan
4.P.Balamurugan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Musiri,
Thiruchirappalli District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Lalgudi Taluk,
Thiruchirappalli District.
3.V.Chinnammal
4.V.Velmurugan
5.G.Anbalagan ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P(MD)No.10351 of 2024
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring that all mutation of
revenue records to the name of respondents 3 and 4 and their ancestors, relating
to the property of lands in Old S.No.13/2, New S.No.11/2, S.Kannanoor Village
[West], Manachanallur Taluk, Thiruchirappalli District, measuring 0.97.50
hectares viz 2.60 acres, as illegal and violative of natural justice and
consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the revenue records to
the name of 16 persons including petitioners 1 and 2 as it stood originally.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
For R-3 to R-5 : Mr.S.K.Mani
ORDER
The petitioner seeks the issue of writ of declaration declaring that the
mutation of revenue records in the name of respondents 3 and 4 and their
ancestors relating to the properties situate in old S.No.13/2 and new S.No.11/2,
S.Kannanoor Village [West], Manachanallur Taluk, Thiruchirappalli District,
measuring 0.97.50 hectares [2.60 acres] is illegal and violative of natural justice
and to consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
records to the name of 16 persons including the petitioners 1 and 2 as it stood
originally.
2. To appreciate the relief claimed by the petitioners, it would be
necessary to briefly allude to the facts as set out in the affidavit filed in support
of the writ petition. The petitioners would submit that the aforesaid lands stood
in the name of 16 persons which included the first and second petitioners as
well and the fathers of petitioners 3 and 4, namely, Thiyagarajan and
Periyasamy respectively. The petitioners would submit that the lands in
question are inam punja lands and personal service inam lands standing in the
name of the ancestors of these 16 persons. The patta originally stood in the
name of all the 16 of them.
3. While so, it appears that one Vellaichamy, the husband of the third
respondent and father of the fourth respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.70 of
1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, which was originally
filed before the Vacation Civil Judge, Trichy in O.S.No.895 of 1995. This suit
was filed only against the official respondents, namely, respondents 1 and 2
herein and the District Collector. In the aforesaid suit, the said Vellaichamy had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
set out that the property belonged to one Nagamuthu Muthiriar and he had
executed a Will, dated 14.02.1969 bequeathing the lands to his foster son. The
suit was one for a declaration of title.
4. In the written statement filed to the above suit, the official
respondents, namely, the Tahsildar had filed a written statement, in which it has
been clearly and categorically stated that the patta stands in the name of 16
persons and that neither the plaintiff nor Nagamuthu had any right over the
same. It was further contended that in 1986, corrections were carried in the
revenue records entering the name of Nagamuthu, which was a wrong entry and
the plaintiffs taken advantage of. Thereafter, the revenue records in the name of
Nagamuthu was cancelled. It appears that, thereafter, the official respondents
had not participated in the proceedings and allowed the suit to be decreed ex
parte on 08.09.1997. The petitioners would contend that the decree obtained in
O.S.No.70 of 1996 is one which is writ large with fraud. Despite coming to
know that the patta stood in the name of 16 persons through the written
statement of the official respondents, the plaintiffs therein had not taken steps
to implead these 16 persons. The judgment was also a non speaking one. On the
basis of this fraudulently obtained decree, the aforesaid person has managed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
get the revenue entries mutated in the names by cancelling the name of 16
persons. The petitioners would submit that they had neither been put on notice
in the suit nor in the patta cancellation proceedings. It is only when the fifth
respondent had attempted to disturb the petitioners' possession by reason of
registered agreement of sale, dated 26.08.2022 entered into between him and
the fifth respondent that they had come to know about the cancellation of patta
in their name. The request to the Tahsildar yielded no result and therefore, they
have come forward with the writ in question.
5. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners have also filed a copy of
the plaint in O.S.No.895 of 1995 later O.S.No.70 of 1996, District Munsif
Court, Lalgudi. A reading of this plaint would show that, the plaintiffs therein,
namely, the husband of the third respondent and father of the fourth respondent,
Vellaichamy were claiming title to the property through adverse possession. In
the said suit, they have pleaded that the official respondents had denied their
title to the suit property and they have also pleaded that their predecessor in
title had obtained right to the property through patta. This suit has been decreed
by a non speaking one line order, which is extracted as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"P.W.1 examined. Exhibits A.1 to A.11 marked.
Claim proved. Suit is decreed as prayed for. No costs."
6. Another fact that has to be taken note of is that, in their written
statement to this suit, the respondents 2 and 3 herein has clearly stated that
patta stands in the name of 16 persons and that the property belongs to them.
When the names of the 16 persons including the petitioners had been deleted,
no prior notice has been issued to them. In these circumstances, though in the
writ petition, the petitioners have asked for a declaration as well as a
consequential prayer of restoring their names into the revenue records, it would
suffice that the order granting patta in the names of the respondents 3 and 4 be
set aside as the mutation done in their names is without following the principles
of natural justice.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 would
primarily rest his arguments on the question of delay and also on the point that
the suit in O.S.No.70 of 1996 had been decreed in favour of Vellaichamy and
steps have not been taken to set aside the same. He would further submit that
the petitioners had themselves filed a suit, which was dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Heard the learned Counsels on either side.
9. The writ petition stands partly allowed and the declaration as sought
for is granted and the order granting patta to Velaichamy and his legal heirs,
respondents 3 and 4 has to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The
second respondent shall therefore, issue notice to the petitioners, respondents 3
and 4 and all other persons interested in the lands in question, that is; old S.No.
13/2, new S.No.11/2, S.Kannanoor Village [West], Manachanallur Taluk,
Thiruchirappalli District, measuring 0.97.50 hectares viz 2.60 acres for a
hearing on a fixed date and after affording opportunity to all the parties to make
their submissions and submit the documents vide personal hearing, pass orders
within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.
05.08.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
BTR
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Musiri,
Thiruchirappalli District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Lalgudi Taluk,
Thiruchirappalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.T.ASHA, J.
BTR
05.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
