Srinivasan Vs the District Collector

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings Na.Ka. 13969/ 2022/ Tha2 dated 26.09.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant patta in favour of the petitioner by considering the Judgment

¶14

1 / 8

¶15

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

¶16

and decree passed by the Honourable District Munsif, Dharmapuri in O.S. No.11/2011 dated 08.94.2014 and change the revenue records accordingly.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Chinnadurai

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Gokulkrishnan Additional Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 26.09.2022 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant patta in favour of the petitioners with respect to the subject property.

¶21

2.Heard Mr.M.Chinnadurai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.R.Gokulkrishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶22

3.The case of the petitioners is that their father Munusamy purchased the subject property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 08.07.1994 registered as Document No.2015/1994 from one Mariappan. After purchase, the father of the petitioners was cultivating the lands and the revenue records were also changed in his name. The father of the petitioners expired on 22.04.2004, leaving behind the petitioners. In the meantime one Anbalagan made use of a power of attorney document executed in his favour by the petitioners father and sold the property to one Govindaraj through a registered sale deed dated 22.06.2005. Aggrieved by the same,

¶23

2 / 8

¶24

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

¶25

a suit was filed in OS.No.11 of 2011, before the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed dated 22.06.2005 as null and void and the subsequent sale deed dated 02.03.2009 as null and void and for declaration of title of the petitioners in the suit property and for a permanent injunction. This suit was contested and by the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2014, the suit was decreed as prayed for.

¶26

4.The petitioners thereafter approached the 3^rd respondent and sought for issuance of joint patta based on the decree passed by the Civil Court. The 3^rd respondent through proceedings dated 06.09.2017, granted joint patta in the name of the petitioners.

¶27

5.The 2^nd respondent once again initiated enquiry and after considering the entire revenue records as well as the title documents, came to a conclusion that the joint patta that was granted in the name of the petitioners by the Tahsildar is in order and confirmed the same.

¶28

6.The matter ultimately reached the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2022, came to a conclusion that the subject property was originally assigned in favour of one Mariappan and this assignment was cancelled through proceedings dated 30.05.1982. After cancellation

¶29

3 / 8

¶30

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

¶31

of the assignment, the property was once again assigned in favour of one

¶32

Thimmiammal and she did not take possession of the property and thereby the assignment lapsed. In view of the same, the subject property was classified as 'Arasu Punjai'. In view of the same, the 1^st respondent directed the assignment that was made in the name of Thimmiammal to be cancelled and to restore the original position of the property as 'Arasu Punjai'. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶33

7.In the considered view of this Court, the preliminary ground that was taken by the 1^st respondent to the effect that the assignment was made in favour of Mariappan with respect to the subject property, itself is questionable. This is in view of the fact that even as per the proceedings of the 1^st respondent, records were placed to establish that the said Mariappan in fact purchased the property from one Durairaj through a sale deed which was registered as Document No.373/1972. Thus, with the available materials, it is seen that the said Mariappan was actually the owner of the property through a sale deed and he was not an assignee. The said Mariappan had thereafter availed loan facilities and created mortgage which was also registered as Document No.122/1973. Ultimately, the said Mariappan along with others sold the subject property in favour of Munusamy, who is the father of the petitioners. On the demise of the father, the petitioners have become the owner of the subject property.

¶34

4 / 8

¶35

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

¶36

8.In the light of these documents, without relying upon the same, the 1^st respondent has gone by the entry made in the relevant records and has rendered a contradictory finding to the effect that the property was assigned in favour of Mariappan. Such assignment order is not even available and most probably, it is a clear case of mistaken identify of the property.

¶37

9.The 1^st respondent also did not take into consideration the proceedings of the

¶38

2^nd respondent dated 17.06.2022. The 2^nd respondent after considering all the materials came to the following conclusions:

¶39

8/kDjhuhpd; je;ij Kdrhkp vd;gth; jUkg[hp rhh; gjpthsh;

¶40

Mtz vz;/2015-1994?,d;go M$h; gl;lhjhuuhd bkh/fhpad; (v) khhpag;gd; tifawhtplkpU;eJ Kiwahf fpua Mtzk; bgw;Ws;ssJ Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; Ch;$pjkhfpwJ/

¶41

9/mjfgho fpuhk g[y vz;/705-2 gug;g[ 2/10/0 b]f;nlh; g{uht[k; mlh;e;j fhl;L tif Ks;ku';fSk; gyrhjp kutiffSk;. rpwpa brofSk; gutyhf fhzg;gl;L jw;nghJ jhprhfnt cs;sJ vd;gJ fpuhk tprhuizapd; K:yk; bjhpa tUfpwJ/

¶42

vdnt. tprhuziz kw;Wk; Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; jUkg[hp tl;lhl;rpahpd; bray;Kiw e/f/fz;/5957-2016-m1. ehs; ? 06/09/2017?d; go gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;ll cj;jut[ Ch;$pjk; bra;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/

¶43

5 / 8

¶44

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

¶45

nkYk; mjf;ggho fpuhk g[y vz;/705-2 gug;g[ 2/10/0 b]f;nlh; epyk; ePjpkd;w jPh;g;gpd; mog;gilapYk;. gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l fpiua Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapYk; gl;lh vz;/1033?,y; Kdrhkpapd; thhpRfsis Tllhf nrh;j;J gl;lh epykhf jhf;fy; ,jd; K:yk; ; bra;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/

¶46

10.The 1^st respondent while dealing with the issue had taken into consideration the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent where the 2^nd respondent has taken note of all the records including the title deeds which shows that Mariappan had purchased the subject property and the property was not assigned in his favour as was observed by the 1^st respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2022. It was a new case which was projected for the first time in the proceedings of the 1^st respondent.

¶47

11.In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 26.09.2022, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the order. The 1st respondent has not properly appreciated the available documents and also did not take into consideration the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 17.06.2022. In view of the same, the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.13969/2022/Tha2 dated 26.09.2022, is hereby quashed and

¶48

6 / 8

¶49

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

¶50

there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to grant patta in favour of the petitioners with respect to the subject property and necessary proceedings shall be issued in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶51

12.In the result, this writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶52

27.03.2025

¶53

Index : Yes/No NCS : Yes/No KP

¶54

To

¶55