P.Jegannathan, Vs Tahsildar

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to grant patta in favour of petitioner herein in respect of southern portion of 69 cents in S. No. 65/3 of Pattanam Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District by implementing the order of the Additional District Executive Magistrate cum District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore passed in his proceedings Ni. Mu. 8656 / 2016 / C1 dt 3.11.2017 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶27

PRAYER in W.P.No.10620 of 2018

¶28

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent dated 03.11.2017 in Ni. Mu. 8656 / 2016 / C1 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶29

W.P.No.2830 of 2018

¶30

For Petitioner: Mr.V.Venkkatasamy For Respondents: Mr.S.B.Viswanathan, For R3 & R4 For R1 & R2 Mr.S.Jayachandran Government Advocate

¶31

W.P.No.10620 of 2018

¶32

For Petitioner: Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents: Mr.V.Venkatasamy For R4 For R1 to R3 Mr.S.Jayachandran Government Advocate

¶33

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

¶34

WP Nos. 2830 & 10620 of 2018

¶35

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶36

Since the issued involved in these petitions are interlinked, they are

¶37

taken up together and a common order is being passed.

¶38

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.2830 of 2018 would

¶39

submit that the petitioner purchased southern portion of the property 69 cents out of 2.19 acres in survey no.65/3, Pattanam Village under a registered sale deed dated as Doc.No.2177/1995 on the file of SRO, Sulur on 02.06.1995. The petitioner's brother Govindaraj, purchased the northern portion of the

¶40

property, 1 acre 50 cents out of 2.19 acres in the above said survey vide document no.2177 of 1995 on the file of the SRO, Sulur on the very same day.

¶41

In the year 1996, the then Tahsildar, on the application filed by the petitioner's

¶42

younger sister-in-law granted joint patta in the name of the petitioner, viz., Jegannathan and his brother, Govindaraj, his mother, Renganayaki and his sister-in-law, Bala Buvaneswari in respect of Survey no.65/3 of Pattinam

¶43

Village and assigned patta no.621, however, the extent is metioned as 3.37 acres instead of 2 acres 19 cents and on the petitioner's brother's application,

¶44

the then Tahsildar made subdivision in respect of survey no.65/3 as 65/3A to

¶45

the extent of 3.37 acres and 65/3B to an extent of 1 acre and 47 cents vide

¶46

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

¶47

WP Nos. 2830 & 10620 of 2018

¶48

order dated 27.04.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner's brother settled the land in

¶49

respect of Survey no. 65/3B in favour of his two sons, namely, G.Jothikumar and Das Prakash (Petitioner in W.P.No.10620 of 2018) vide document no.4719 of 2010 on the file of SRO, Sulur on 11.06.2010. Since the

¶50

petitioner's name did not find a place either in Survey No. 65/3A or 65/3B, for inclusion of petitioner's name as joint pattadarar along with petitioner's brother and other legal heir, he made application to the Tahsildar on 14.06.2011, in which, the Tahsildar, included the name of the petitioner as Joint pattadarar vide order dated 14.06.2011, against which, the petitioner's brother's son, preferred appeal before the RDO, on 08.09.2011. The RDO vide its order dated 01.04.2013 deleted the petitioner's name as joint pattadarar as against which, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Additional District

¶51

Executive Magistrate cum District Revenue Officer on 12.04.2013 and after enquiry, DRO set aside the order passed by the RDO and cancelled the subdivisions made by the Tahsildar on 03.11.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a petition before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent conducted

¶52

enquiry and directed the petitioner to apply for change of patta through online. After the order passed by the DRO, the son of the petitioner's brother,

¶53

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

¶54

WP Nos. 2830 & 10620 of 2018

¶55

converted the survey no.65/3B as subdivided on 25.04.2001 and put up

¶56

temporary sheds also, hence for implementation of the order dated 03.11.2017, the petitioner has filed writ petition (W.P.no.2830 of 2018) before this Court, thereby pleaded for issuance of a direction to the 1st respondent to implement the order passed by the DRO dated 03.11.2017 and pass appropriate orders.

¶57

3.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.10620 of 2018 would submit that he is the owner of the property bearing Survey no.65/3B, to an extent of 1.50 acres originally purchased by his father, Govindarajan vide sale deed daetd 02.06.1995. The petitioner's father executed settlement deed in favour of the petitioner and petitioner's brother, namely, Jothikumar. While so, the 3rd respondent issued a patta no.894 including the name of the 4th respondent by unlawful manner, aggrieved by the same, he preferred a complaint, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the very same issue civil suit is pending in O.S.No.587 of 2014 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore . Accordingly, prays for appropirate orders.

¶58

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

¶59

WP Nos. 2830 & 10620 of 2018

¶60

Heard both sides and perused the documents placed on record.

¶61

The facts in the present case is not in dispute. The fight exists between the brothers and their sons for inclusion of their name as joint pattadarar and already the said Dasprakash, Petitioner in W.P.No.2830 of 2018 instituted a suit before the District Court, Coimbatore in O.S.No.587 of 2014.

¶62

In view of the above, since the suit has been instituted by the petitioner in W.P.No.10620 of 2018 in O.S.No.587 of 2014 and the same is pending before the District Court, Coimbatore, liberty is granted to the petitioner in W.P.No.2830 of 2018 to file a fresh application for issuance of separate patta if the decree granted in his favour, the Tahsildar is directed to include the petitioner in W.P.No.2830 of 2018 as joint pattadarar, however, such inclusion is subject to the result of the pending suit in O.S.No.587 of 2014 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore. Further, liberty is granted to

¶63

the petitioners to institute a separte suit for establishment of title, if so advised.

¶64

With the above directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶65

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

¶66

WP Nos. 2830 & 10620 of 2018

¶67

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶68

08-09-2025