Sivasamy v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA Sivasamy ... Petitioner Vs 1 The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

2 The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

4 The Tahsildar, Tirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District.

5 The Sub Registrar, Madurai South (Joint - 1), Madurai South, Madurai.

...

Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to

restore the patta for Survey No.54 in Othai Alangulam Village, Tirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.G.Raghavendran, Govt. Advocate.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the patta for Survey No.54 in Othai Alangulam Village, Tirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District.

2. The subject property belongs to petitioner's father, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 27.03.1950, vide document No.1197 of 1950. Since the property was Inam land, it was covered by Act 30 of 1963. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, vide his proceedings, dated 24.01.1966, rejected the claim of the petitioner's father for grant of patta. The petitioner's father preferred a revision petition against the said order and the Settlement Officer, by an order, dated 14.08.1967, allowed the revision petition and ordered issuance of patta in favour of petitioner's father and patta No.119 was also issued in his favour. During UDR updation, the subject survey number was erroneously shown as Anathinam land. Under the circumstances, the petitioner's father submitted a petition to the

Tahsildar, who ordered grant of patta, by his proceedings, dated 04.10.1991. The petitioner's father died on 17.11.1992. Thereafter, the subject property devolved on the petitioner and other legal heirs. The petitioner and his family members have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, when the petitioner approached the respondents to obtain subsidy for the subject land, he came to know that the settlement proceedings, dated 14.08.1967, and the proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 04.10.1991, had not been carried out in the revenue records and the classification of the land continued to be shown as Anathinam land. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 11.10.2022, to respondents 1 and 4, praying for issuance of patta in his father's name. Since no action was taken, the petitioner submitted another representation, dated 23.12.2023, to the second respondent. Even thereafter, no action was taken by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the orders passed by the Settlement Officer as early as 14.08.1967 and the subsequent orders of the Tahsildar, dated 04.10.1991, the classification of the land remained as Anathinam and, because of the said classification, the petitioner was not in a position to deal with the properties.

4. It is seen that the Settlement Officer, vide his proceedings, dated 14.08.1967, ordered issuance of patta under Section 11 (a) of the Inam Abolition Act. The Tahsildar, vide his proceedings, dated 04.10.1991, also passed an order for issuance of patta. In spite of the said orders, the revenue records were not rectified and the classification of the land remained as Anathinam. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation, dated 23.12.2023, which is kept pending with the second respondent, without any action.

5. I am, therefore, of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 23.12.2023, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to state that the second respondent shall issue notice of enquiry to the petitioner and all interested persons and, thereafter, pass orders, after hearing them.

6. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 30.01.2025 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No dixit

To:

1 The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

2 The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

4 The Tahsildar, Tirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District.

5 The Sub Registrar, Madurai South (Joint - 1), Madurai South, Madurai.

N.MALA, J.

dixit 30.01.2025