Disposed

P.Rajangam v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC20 Oct 2021WP/21922/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a directive for the Tahsildar to grant a patta and consider a representation dated 05.08.2021 regarding land ownership.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus directed to consider the representation dated 05.08.2021 and pass orders on merits within six months.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

W.P No.21922 of 2021

¶6

P.Rajangam

¶7

 ..Petitioner

¶8

Vs

¶9

1.The Tahsildar,
 Cuddalore.

¶10

2.Gajendran

¶11

3.Rajendran ..Respondents

¶12

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
1st respondent to grant patta to the petitioner in respect of
property bearing S.Nos.25/8E and 8F measuring 13-1/4 cents by
considering the representation dated 05.08.2021.

P.Rajangam Vs The Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ
of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to grant patta to the
petitioner in respect of property bearing S.Nos.25/8E and 8F
measuring 13-1/4 cents by considering the representation dated
05.08.2021.

¶19

Taluk, Cuddalore District. Patta for the entire 41 cents stood
in the name of the 4 brothers. The 'A' register showed patta in
the name of Natesan and 3 others. Later, there was an oral
partition between the 4 brothers more than 50 years back. In the
partition, Natesan was given 21 cents. Natesan's son Lakshmanan
took 10 cents, while another son Kannabiran took 11 cents.
Poongan was allotted 6-3/4 cents, Perumal was allotted 6-3/4
cents, Pakkiri was allotted 6-1/2 cents. Pakkiri had 2 sons
Velayudham and petitioner and they took 3-1/4 cents each.
Lakshmanan's family is in possession of 10 cents, while
Kannabiran's family is in possession of 11 cents. Poongan's son
is Ezhaimuthu. His family is in possession of Poongan's 6-3/4
cents. Perumal's son Veerappan sold away his 6-3/4 cents to
Velayudham, who is the elder brother of the petitioner, under a
registered sale deed dated 07.05.1968. Thus, Perumal's heirs do
not have any property there. From Velayudham, the petitioner
had purchased the aforesaid 6-3/4 cents by means of a registered
sale deed dated 18.02.1974. Later, by means of a registered sale
deed dated 01.04.1976, Velayudham sold the 3-1/4 cents obtained
by him in the oral partition to the petitioner. The petitioner
obtained 3-1/4 share in the partition. Thus, the petitioner is
entitled to 3-1/4 + 6-3/4 + 3-1/4 = 13-1/4 cents in the
entire 41 cents, in one block and he is in possession of the
same. There are 3 houses in the entire property wherein the
petitioner and his 3 sons Kaliamurthi, Chinnadurai and Arumugham
are living.

¶20

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that during
the time of re-survey, old survey number was assigned as new
S.No.25/8 and patta was entered in the name of Natesan and his 3
brothers. Later, when Lakshmanan and Kannabiran applied for
transfer of patta to their names, the property seems to have
been sub-divided as S.Nos.25/8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E and 8F. Patta
for Lakshmanan was given in S.No.28/8B for 0.04.05 ares, Patta
for Kannabiran was given in S.No.25/8C for 0.04.45 ares. The
petitioner has been given S.No.25/8E for 0.02.15 ares which
relates to the property obtained by the petitioner and his
brother in the partition. The petitioner also purchased his
brother's share. Even then, there is a shortfall of 1 cent. As
far as the remaining extent is concerned, including 6-3/4 cents
purchased by the petitioner, patta still stands in the name of
Natesan and 3 others, which is inexplicable and this has
happened without the knowledge of the petitioner and no notice

¶22

was sent to him. Patta has not been transferred to the names of
Poongan's heirs. Thus, patta in respect of S.Nos.25/8B and 8C
is alright. In the remaining 20 cents or 8 ares, in respect of
6-3/4 cents, patta has to be given to Poongan's heirs. For the
remaining 13-1/4 cents, a single patta has to be issued to the
petitioner. As per the sub division by the 1st respondent, the
petitioner's property is covered by S.Nos.25/8E and 8F.
Poongan's son was Ezhaimuthu, Respondents 2 and 3 are
Ezhaimuthu's sons. They are entitled to 6-3/4 cents. They have
no objection in separate pattas being given. They have been
impleaded since they are interested in 6-3/4 cents. The
petitioner gave a representation dated 05.08.2021 to the 1st
respondent to effect mutation, but there was no response. Hence
the present petition.

¶24

5. Without going into the merits of the case, this Court
is inclined to direct the first respondent to consider the
representation of petitioner dated 05.08.2021 and pass orders on
merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

P.Rajangam v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mujibur Rahman Vs The Inspector General of Registration

D.Balasundaram Vs The District Revenue Officer

S.Elangovan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Jayaseelan, Vs Tashildhar

P.Rajangam v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mujibur Rahman Vs The Inspector General of Registration

D.Balasundaram Vs The District Revenue Officer

S.Elangovan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Jayaseelan, Vs Tashildhar

A compact analysis

D.Prabhakaran, M/37 Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Its

A.Thangam Vs The District Registrar