Anthony. S v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.09.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA and W.M.P(MD)Nos.13251 and 13253 of 2021 1.S.Anthony 2.Christy Pushpa .. Petitioners Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2.The Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.Sagayarani ..Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.702/2023/Aa4 dated 07.03.2024 and quash the same as illegal, consequently directing the first respondent to restore the

Patta in Patta No.295 in its original position by including the petitioner's name.

For Petitioners :

Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For R1 & R2 :

Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate For R3 :

Mr.N.Marimuthu

ORDER

Challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings, dated 07.03.2024 and seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to restore the patta in Patta No.295 to its original position including the petitioner's name, the petitioners are before this Court.

2. The contention of the petitioners is that the vendor of the 3rd respondent, namely Maruthamuthu had acquired 39 cents in Survey No. 66/7 under an oral partition. On the basis of this oral partition, the 2nd respondent had also mutated the revenue records in the respective names. The three persons who had entered into an oral partition, namely Muthukaruppan, Maruthamuthu and Sundarraj were in possession and

enjoyment of the properties. The said Muthukaruppan had sold his share measuring 43 cents to a third party and Sundarraj had sold his 39 cents to the 1st petitioner's father under a registered sale deed, dated 12.10.2009. Since then, they have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. Thereafter, under two settlement deeds, dated 26.11.2021, his father had transferred 20 cents in favour of the 1st petitioner and the remaining 19 cents in favour of the 2nd petitioner's husband. Since then, they have been in possession of the same.

3. Thereafter, the said Maruthamuthu along with his son Senthilmurugan had jointly sold their share of 39 cents along with the share of Sundarraj, totally measuring an extent of 78 cents to the 3rd respondent under a registered sale deed, dated 17.09.2009. On the basis of this sale deed, which was prima facie a fraudulent sale deed, the 3rd respondent had managed to obtain patta in respect of the entire extent of 78 cents though she is only entitled to 39 cents. The 2nd respondent had cancelled the patta standing in the name of the petitioners without issuing any notice to the petitioners. Since the 3rd respondent had disturbed the

possession of the 1st petitioner's father, he had filed O.S.No.682 of 2009 before the Additional District Munsif, Dindigul. The said suit was dismissed. However, it is the contention of the petitioners that they are continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. The 2nd respondent after considering their possession and enjoyment, had directed their name to be included in the patta. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent had submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent requesting him to remove the names of the petitioners from the patta and without notice, their names have been removed. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent lacks jurisdiction and since his remedy is only to approach the 1st respondent by way of appeal. Therefore, the petitioners had preferred an appeal, dated 18.01.2023 before the 1st respondent. Since there was no further enquiry, the petitioners had moved W.P(MD)No.13714 of 2023 before this Court and this Court by an order, dated 12.06.2023 the same was ordered directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal.

4. The 3rd respondent had filed O.S.No.226 of 2023 on the file of Additional District Court, Dindigul once again seeking a relief of

permanent injunction. The petitioners would submit that during the enquiry before the 1st respondent, they had submitted all the records. However, their appeal was rejected on the ground that civil suit was pending consideration and appropriate relief have to be obtained from the Civil Court and thereafter, it would be considered. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the 1st respondent while directing the parties to decide the title before the Civil Court, has not restored the patta in the name of the petitioners. More particularly, the 2nd respondent had passed the order directing the removal of the name of the petitioners without notice to them.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

7. Since the parties are before the Civil Court and as per Rule 4(4), the revenue authorities cannot go into the question of title, the 1st respondent has rightly directed the parties to settle the dispute before the

Civil Court and thereafter approach them. I see no reason to disagree with the order of the 1st respondent.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 02.09.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gbg To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2.The Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

P.T.ASHA, J.

gbg 02.09.2024