V.Muniammal Vs the District Collector

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 4^th Respondent herein to conduct an enquiry by issuing notices to all the necessary parties, to cancel the bogus Pattas issued in Survey Nos.85/10A, 88/7A, 88/7B, 22/9A, 88/7C & 22/9B, Koraikeni Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District by considering the representation submitted on behalf of the Petitioner through counsel dated 22.09.2024 and the proceedings issued by the 1^st Respondent herein vide his Proceedings in Oo.Mu.Aa3/2680114/2024 dated 10.12.2024.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Sathiyaraj for Mr.A.Mohamed Ashfalk For Respondents – 1 to 5: Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader

¶29

ORDER

¶30

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken

¶31

up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. In view of the nature of

¶32

the order that is going to be passed in the present writ petition, notice to respondents 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 is dispensed with.

¶33

2/9

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.23671 of 2025

¶36

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 4^th respondent to conduct an enquiry by issuing Notices to all the necessary parties, to cancel the bogus Pattas issued in respect of the property comprised in Survey Nos.85/10A, 88/7A, 88/7B, 22/9A, 88/7C & 22/9B situated at Koraikeni Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District by considering the Petitioner's Representation dated 22.09.2024 and the Proceedings dated 10.12.2024 vide Oo.Mu.Aa3/2680114/2024 issued by the 1^st respondent.

¶37

The brief facts of the case are that the land measuring an extent of

¶38

2.5 Acres situated at Koraikeni Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District originally belonged to petitioner's father-in-law viz., Late Mr.A.Manjini @ Manjini Gounder. The petitioner's father-in-law had four sons and one daughter viz.,

¶39

(i) M.Subramani

¶40

(ii) M.Ramalingam (Died) (iii) M.Veerappan (Died) (Petitioner's husband)

¶41

(iv) M.Kannan

¶42

(v) M.Poorani

¶43

The petitioner's father-in-law died intestate in the year 1974 leaving behind

¶44

3/9

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.23671 of 2025

¶47

his wife and children as his legal heirs. After the demise of petitioner's father-in-law, petitioner's brother-in-laws viz., M.Subramani and M.Kannan took over the aforesaid land and they were doing agriculture in the said land.

¶48

While so, the petitioner's husband viz., Mr.M.Veerappan died in the year 1996 and after the demise of petitioner's husband, the petitioner insisted her brother-in-laws, M.Subramani and M.Kannan to execute a Partition Deed pertaining to her deceased husband's share over the subject land, but, they denied to do so.

¶49

The petitioner's brother-in-laws, M.Subramani and M.Kannan obtained a bogus Legal Heir Certificate of Late Mr.A.Manjini @ Manjini Gounder, wherein, their names were only included as legal heirs of the deceased Mr.A.Manjini @ Manjini Gounder and the petitioner's husband name was not included as a legal heir of the deceased Mr.A.Manjini @ Manjini Gounder. On the strength of said bogus Legal Heir Certificate, the petitioner's brother-in-laws, M.Subramani and M.Kannan obtained Patta for the subject land in their favour. Further, during the year 2016, by using the said bogus Patta, M.Kannan had settled his share in the subject land, to and

¶50

4/9

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.23671 of 2025

¶53

in favour of his two sons viz., K.Manohar & K.Loganathan by way of a Settlement Deed.

¶54

Details of the bogus Pattas issued in favour of M.Subramani, K.Manohar and K.Loganathan are as follows:

¶55

Old Survey No.	New Survey No.	Patta No.	Name of the Patta Holders
105/8A	85/10A	225	M.Subramani S/o. A.Manjini
104/5	88/7A	846	K.Manohar S/o. M.Kannan
104/5, 122/12	88/7B, 22/9A	847	K.Manohar S/o. M.Kannan
104/5, 122/12	88/7C, 22/9B	848	K.Loganathan S/o. M.Kannan

¶56

Aggrieved by the aforesaid acts of M.Subramani and M.Kannan, the petitioner made a Representation dated 22.09.2024 to the respondents 1, 3, 4 & 5, requesting to conduct an enquiry to cancel the aforesaid bogus Pattas issued in favour of M.Subramani, K.Manohar and K.Loganathan.

¶57

Subsequently, the 1^st respondent vide Proceedings dated 10.12.2024 bearing Oo.Mu.Aa3/2680114/2024, directed the 4^th respondent to take necessary action on the petitioner's Representation dated 22.09.2024. However, till date, no steps have been taken by the 4^th respondent pursuant

¶58

5/9

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.No.23671 of 2025

¶61

to the direction issued by the 1^st respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the property comprised in Survey No.85/10A, the property comprised in all other Survey Numbers viz., Survey Nos.88/7A, 88/7B, 22/9A, 88/7C & 22/9B situated at Koraikeni Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District were sold. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner has confined the relief sought herein, only in respect of the alleged bogus Patta issued in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.85/10A situated at Koraikeni Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶63

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the concerned respondent would conduct an enquiry with regard to the issuance of Patta in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.85/10A situated at Koraikeni Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District and pass appropriate orders, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶64

6/9

¶65

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

¶66

W.P.No.23671 of 2025

¶67

In view thereof, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with the direction to the 3 rd respondent to conduct an enquiry with regard to the Patta issued in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.85/10A situated at Koraikeni Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District and pass appropriate orders, after giving prior notice to the petitioner, respondents 6, 8, 9, 10 & 11 and other interested parties, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of uploading of the web copy of this order without waiting for the receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case and it is open to the 3 rd respondent to consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law. No costs.

02.07.2025

mrr

Index : Yes/No

Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order

¶72

To

¶73

7/9