Palaniappan v. The District Revenue Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI and W.M.P(MD)Nos.12553,12555 & 12556 of 2023 Palaniappan .... Petitioner /Vs./
1. The District Revenue Officer Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3. The Tahsildar Singampuri, Sivagangai District.
4. The Village Administrative Officer Sadhurvedhamangalam, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District.
5. Selvaraj. P
6. Ravichandran. P
7. The Sub-Registrar Singampunari, Sivagangai District.
.... Respondents 1/5
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned patta No.1454, 2760, 3433, 3427, 3426, 3429 and 3430 issued by the third respondent in favour of fifth and sixth respondents and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the third respondent to grant patta in the name of the petitioner after enquiry in respect Sy. No.239/1A, 245/8, 231/20, 185/8, 22/6, 251/23, 65/13, 65/14, 65/9, 66/1A, 67/1, 228/1, 228/10, 228/2, 228/9, 229/98, 229/9A, 65/6B, 228/13, 228/4, 64/11, 65/5, 65/7, 65/8 in Sadhurvedhamangalam Village, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnu Varthanan For R1 to R4 & R7: Mrs.K.Malathi Additional Government Pleader For R6 : Mr.R.Alagianambi
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the patta transfer order in favour of the respondents 5 & 6.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the patta was mutated in the name of the respondents 5 & 6 without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is the adoped son of Late.Subramaniya Konar and Late.Nallakarrupi. The respondents 5 & 6 are the sons of 2/5
Late.Periyakaruppa Konar and Late.Valliammal. He has further stated that the petitioner is the biological son of Late.Periyakaruppa Konar and Late.Valliammal. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that he is also entitled to share in the property.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Valliammal did not have any right to execute the settlement deed. However, till date the settlement deeds have not been challenged by the petitioner. In fact, it is only based on the registered settlement deeds in favour of the respondents 5 and 6 that the authorities have proceeded to transfer patta, and therefore, the said patta transfer orders cannot be termed as perverse or illegal.
4. It shall be open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court, challenging the settlement deed executed by Valliammal based on the Will of late Subramanian Konar himself thereby, disentitling the Valliammal to exercise any right of ownership over the subject property to enable her, thereafter to have settled the same in favour of respondents 5 and 6. As far as the present challenge is concerned, I do not find any 3/5
justification to interfere with the considered order of mutation of patta transfer from the name of Valliammal to the name of respondents 5 and 6 which is based on the registered settlement deed executed by the Pattadar Valliammal herself. The writ petition is dismissed with above liberty. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No 26.03.2025 am To
1. The District Revenue Officer Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3. The Tahsildar Singampuri, Sivagangai District.
4. The Village Administrative Officer Sadhurvedhamangalam, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District.
5. The Sub-Registrar Singampunari, Sivagangai District.
4/5
P.B. BALAJI , J.
am Order made in Dated:
26.03.2025 5/5