S.Raja Lakshmi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA S.Rajalakshmi .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Melur, Madurai District.
2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Melur, Madurai District.
.. Respondents Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.06.2024 and to restore the patta No.1979 which stood in the petitioner name regarding the properties in SR.No.223/4A measuring total extent of 4 acres 76 cents in Thaniyarmangalam Village, Melur taluk, Madurai District, and to do necessary mutation in the revenue records of Chitta A1/6_________
Register and Adangal.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Mohammed Abbas For Respondents :Mr.P.Thambidurai, Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.06.2024 and to restore the Patta in Patta No.1979 which stood in the petitioner's name, in respect of the property in SR.No.223/4A measuring an extent of 4 acres 76 cents in Thaniyarmangalam Village, Melur taluk, Madurai District, and to do necessary mutation in the revenue records Chitta A-Register and Adangal.
2.The petitioner would submit that she purchased the above property from one Kalaiarasi under a registered sale deed, dated 07.06.2012. The said Kalaiarasi has purchased the property from one Iyyanar, through a sale deed, dated 11.04.2000. After her purchase, the petitioner had obtained patta in her name in patta No.1979. Since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by digging bore well and also getting electricity connection in her name. The petitioner 2/6_________
would further submit that she has been cultivating in the said land from the date of her purchase and she has been paying the necessary taxes. 3.In the revenue records, the petitioner is shown as the owner of the said property. While so, the second respondent, without conducting any enquiry, deleted the petitioner's name in the patta and denoted the said land as poramboke and classified this land as "Panjamar Tharisu" in the revenue records. This exercise has been done, even without considering the assignment order dated 07.06.1961, sale deed in favour of the petitioner, patta and also the tax receipts. The petitioner therefore made a representation dated 14.06.2024 to the first respondent in this regard. Since the same has not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court.
4.The contention of the petitioner is not denied by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the reclassification has been done without notice to the petitioner. 3/6_________
5.Had the petitioner been put on notice, she would have produced all the relevant documents, which would clearly show that the property is in possession of the petitioner and also prior to her predecessor in title and the property would not have been classified as Panjamar Tharisu. 6.In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and this Court directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.06.2024 and to restore the Patta in Patta No.1979, in the petitioner's name, in respect of the property in SR.No.223/4A measuring an extent of 4 acres 76 cents in Thaniyarmangalam Village, Melur taluk, Madurai District, and to do effective changes in the revenue records, like Chitta A-Register and Adangal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notice to the interested person if any. No costs.
22.08.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes 4/6_________
To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Melur, Madurai District.
2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Melur, Madurai District.
5/6_________
P.T.ASHA, J.
Ns 22.08.2024 6/6_________