Madras High Court
Arumugam vs / on 18 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.988 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.988 of 2019
Arumugam .... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.Special Tahsildar,
Natham Settlement,
District Court Campus,
Pudukottai.
2.Prithiviraj @ Rajagopala Thondaman
3.The Tahsildar,
Pudukottai.
(The third respondent is suo motu
impleaded as per the order of
this Court dated 18.03.2025) .... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating
to the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.775/2018(A1)
dated 28.08.2018 and quash the same with a consequential direction
directing the first respondent to mutate patta for 0.0272.0 sq.metres
(2038 sq.ft) in T.S.No.8696/39, Block No.97, Pudukottai Town and
District.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.988 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balakrishnan
For R1 : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.Ponnupandi
for Mr.K.Govindarajan
ORDER
The writ petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent in
Na.Ka.No.775/2018(A1), dated 28.08.2018 and consequently direct the
first respondent to mutate the patta in favour of the petitioner. The first
respondent has proceeded to rely on the patta standing in the name of the
predecessor interest of the second respondent and for that reason, the
petitioner's application for patta has been rejected.
2. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in this writ
petition is also to the same effect. However, the learned counsel for the
second respondent, who is the successor in interest of the Maharaja of
Pudukkottai, fairly submits that the petitioner is admittedly in possession
of the subject property and the claim of the petitioner is that the Maharaja
of Pudukkottai had gifted the subject lands to the faithful employee of
one Rajagopalan, from whom the petitioner had purchased the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:03 pm )
Therefore, the second respondent honouring the original act of gifting
made by the Maharaja of Pudukkottai, concedes that the second
respondent has no objection for issuance of patta in favour of the
petitioner. The consent of the Maharaja of Pudukkottai was the only
impediment for the authorities to deny Patta to the petitioner.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the first respondent would submit that the petitioner has been using the
property for commercial use, which is in violation of Natham scheme
itself, as the petitioner can only put up a residential house and reside in
the suit property and cannot put the property to any commercial use. I
find from the typed set of papers that the petitioner has assessed the
property to tax and even prior to his purchase, the taxes were being paid
by the petitioner's vendor Rajagopalan and assessment of the building is
also residential in nature. I find that for the said property the Civil
Supplies Department has also issued a ration card. Therefore, there is no
reason for the respondents to deny patta to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:03 pm )
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
the Eexecutive Officer, Kadathur vs V.Swaminathan and others
reported in 2004 3 CC 270, where, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court held that the house sites which are classified as Grama Natham
lands, would not vest with the Government and the persons who are in
possession, are entitled to continue occupation of the same.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit
that the first respondent, who has been arrayed as Special Tahsildar
Natham settlement, which office has been subsequently withdrawn and
the regular revenue Tahsildar, Pudukkottai would be the competent
person to issue patta to the petitioner. Therefore, the Tahsildar,
Pudukkottai is suo motu impleaded as third respondent in the writ
petition.
6. In view of the consent now being expressed by the second
respondent, the petitioner is entitled to mutation of patta in his name.
Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the Tahsildar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:03 pm )
Pudukottai is directed to issue a patta to the petitioner within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No 18.03.2025
am
To
The Special Tahsildar,
Natham Settlement,
District Court Campus,
Pudukottai.
Copy to
The Tahsildar,
Pudukottai
P.B. BALAJI, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:03 pm )
am
Order made in
Dated:
18.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 12:01:03 pm )
