V.S.Gunaseelan Vs The District Collector

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 11.09.2021 in Na.Ka No. 1729/ 2021/ A3 of the 2^nd respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent herein to delete the name of the 4^th respondent herein from the patta in respect of the property of an extent of 50 cents in Old T.S. No.256/2, New T.S No.1207/ B, Block No.23, Ward B, Pollachi.

¶15

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

¶16

WP No. 23496 of 2021

¶17

For Petitioner(s): Ms.R.Seethalakshmi for M/s.Sa.Kanmani For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Gowtham Raj Govt. Advocate For R1 To R3 M/s.R.Sanjay For R4

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.09.2021 in Na.Ka No. 1729/ 2021/ A3 passed by the 2^nd respondent and consequently to direct the 2^nd respondent to delete the name of the 4^th respondent from the patta in respect of the property to an extent of 50 cents in Old T.S. No.256/2, New T.S No.1207/ B, Block No.23, Ward B, Pollachi.

¶20

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property and the name of the 4^th respondent has been erroneously included in the patta in respect of the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation before the 2^nd respondent to remove the name of the 4^th respondent from the patta in respect of the subject property. However, the 2^nd respondent had rejected the same on the ground that an appeal suit is pending as regards the said property.

¶21

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

¶22

WP No. 23496 of 2021

¶23

3.She would further submit that the patta for the subject property was originally granted by the Settlement Tahsildar on 21.04.1969 in favour of the then-occupants, after conducting an enquiry, in which the 4^th respondent had also participated. In the said proceedings, the Settlement Tahsildar held that the 4^th respondent had parted with the enjoyment of the subject property long back. Subsequently, the petitioner had purchased the subject property in the year 1970. Thereafter, no appeal was preferred by the 4^th respondent before the Special Tribunal Appeals against the proceedings of the Settlement Tahsildar dated 21.04.1969. However, in the year 2012, the 4^th respondent had filed a suit for declaration of title regarding the subject property in O.S.No.85 of 2012, before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The said suit was dismissed on 31.08.2017. Despite the same, the name of the 4^th respondent Temple still exists on the patta in respect of the subject property. While so, the petitioner made a representation before the 2^nd respondent to remove the name of the 4^th respondent from the patta in respect of the subject property. Since the said representation was rejected by the 2^nd respondent citing the reason that the appeal suit is pending, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶24

4.Learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent would submit that the 4^th respondent has preferred an appeal suit against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.85 of 2012. According to the 4^th respondent, the appeal suit is yet to be numbered.

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 23496 of 2021

¶27

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government

¶28

Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶29

6.Upon hearing the above submissions, it is evident that the petitioner had succeeded in both the suit and in the proceedings of the Settlement Tahsildar. The settlement Tahsildar had granted patta to and in favour of the then occupants of the subject property and held that the 4^th respondent has no right over the subject property as the 4^th respondent had parted with the enjoyment of the subject property long back. Further, no appeal was filed against the said proceedings. Subsequently in the year 2012, a suit was filed in O.S.No.85 of 2012 before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and the same was dismissed on 31.08.2017. Though the said suit was dismissed on 31.08.2017, the 4^th respondent has not taken any steps to number the appeal suit till date. Such being the case, since the petitioner had succeeded in both the proceedings and for the past eight years no appeal suit was preferred by the 4^th respondent, retaining the name of the 4^th respondent in the patta in respect of the subject property is not proper.

¶30

7.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent. Accordingly the impugned order dated 11.09.2021 is hereby set aside. The 2^nd respondent is

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 23496 of 2021

¶33

directed to issue patta in respect of the subject property in favour of the petitioner by removing the name of the 4^th respondent.

¶34

8.With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶35

02-03-2026

¶36

rst