← Library
Madras High CourtWP/12186/2021disposed of

Kasthuri v. The District Collector

2021-09-21Honourable Mrs Justice V.Bhavani Subbaroyan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.09.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN W.P.No.12186 of 2021 Kasthuri ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector,

2. The Tahsildar, Chinna Salem Taluk, Kaspa Chinna Salem,

3. Manimaran

4. Om Hari ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the notice dated 30.11.2020 and which was posted on 07.12.2020 sent on behalf of the petitioner by conducting an enquiry, afford opportunity to the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 and to pass appropriate orders thereon for restoring the patta No. 341 on his file.

For Petitioner : Ms.Usha for Mr.S.Dawood Khan For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy for R1 and R2 Government Advocate Mr. Anand Subramanian for R3 and R4

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the notice dated 30.11.2020 and which was posted on 07.12.2020 sent on behalf of the petitioner by conducting an enquiry and affording opportunity to the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 and to pass appropriate orders for restoring patta No.341. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the land measuring a total extent of 2 acre and 37 cents comprised in Ayan Punja Survey No.60/6 situated in Vasudevanur Village, Chinna Salem Taluk, Villupuram District, her husband Narayanasamy is in possession of the aforesaid lands were originally in possession and enjoyment of one Ramasamy Padayachi.

3.The petitioner submits that during his life time, the above said Ramasamy Padayachi had executed a Settlement Deed in favour of his daughter Sengammal on 04.05.1984, the said Sengammal in turn sold the entire land in favour of Pachamuthu, who is her father-in-law by a registered Sale Deed dated 03.09.2001 and her father-in-law in turn executed a Settlement Deed dated 01.06.2004 registered as Document No.1120 of 2004, settling the aforesaid land in favour of her husband Narayanasamy and her husband Narayanasamy is in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land from 01.06.2004 as a true and lawful owner.

4.According to the petitioner, recognizing the possession of her husband, joint patta No.341 was issued in the names of her father-in-law Pachamuthu, Manimaran and one Veeramuthu. 5.The petitioner submits that Velayutham, father of the third respondent herein along with his men attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by her father-in-law during the year 2001 and her father-in-law had filed a suit in O.S.No.665 of 2021 before the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi against Velayutham, father of the third respondent praying for a declaration to declare that her father-in-law is the owner of the property and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendantVelayutham from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the suit was decreed on 24.01.2006.

6.The petitioner further submits that aggrieved over the same, the father of the third respondent Velayutham had filed A.S.No.40 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Kallakurichi and subsequently transferred to the District Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi and re-numbered as A.S.No.48 of 2008. 7.According to the petitioner, during the pendency of A.S.No.48 of 2008, the appellant Velayutham, father of the third respondent herein died and therefore, his legal heirs have been brought on record and the appeal in A.S.No.48 of 2008 was dismissed on 27.09.2010.

8.The petitioner submits that suppressing filing of the above said case in A.S.No.48 of 2008, the third respondent herein has filed an independent suit in O.S.No.361 of 201 against her father-in-law Pachamuthu and her husband Narayanasamy before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi for a bare injunction, the suit in O.S.No.361 of 2013 was decreed exparte and her husband or herself has no knowledge about the filing of the suit in O.S.No.361 of 2013 and the exparte decree passed in the above suit on 08.10.2018. 9.The petitioner further submits that the suit in O.S.No.361 of 2013 was partially allowed against which the third and fourth respondents herein have filed an appeal with delay. 10.According to the petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid exparte decree passed in O.S.No.361 of 2013 on 08.10.

2018, the respondents 3 and 4 have created a document and got it registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kallakurichi and on the strength of the above forged and fabricated document, the respondents 3 and 4 have maneuvered to get the joint patta No.341 cancelled and instead obtained an independent patta No.1377 in the name of the fourth respondent herein.

11.The petitioner submits that her husband submitted a representation seeking independent patta in respect of his portion of the property, but the same was rejected by the second respondent herein in his proceedings Mu.Mu.A5/112/2019 dated 13.08.2019 by stating that I.A.No.41 of 2019 is filed against the decree passed in O.S.No.361 of 2013 dated 08.10.2018 and therefore, the application of her husband could not be processed

as the matter is subjudice and on the other hand, for the very same claim made by the respondents 3 and 4, during the pendency of the suit/appeal, the second respondent has issued a separate patta No.1377.

12.According to the petitioner, she is not challenging the order of rejection dated 13.08.2019 passed by the second respondent and on the other hand, she is only seeking a direction to the second respondent to restore the joint patta No.341 by conducting an enquiry after affording opportunities to all the pattadhars.

13.The petitioner has no other alternative remedy except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition filed.

14.Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 and perused the materials available on record.

15.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the made by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the official respondents shall consider the notice dated 30.11.2020 and conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity to all the parties concerned, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-V) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar pam To

1. The District Collector,

2. The Tahsildar, Chinna Salem Taluk, Kaspa Chinna Salem, +2CCs to M/s.Dawood Khan, Advocate, SR.No. 48075 W.P.No.12186 of 2021 RLD(CO) B.VC (22/10/2021)