Daisyrani v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.09.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA Daisyrani .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul District.

2.The Tahsildar, Nilamottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.Chitra 4.Maheshwari .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to dispose petitioner's Revision Petition No.7651 of 2013, dated 23.10.2013 regarding to cancel the joint patta No.3131 and issue separate patta in petitioner's name measuring to the extent of 65 cents in Survey No. 468/2A at Nilakottai Village and Taluk, Dindigul District.

For Petitioner : Mr..Balaji For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezian Government Advocate

ORDER

Aggrieved by the fact that application, dated 19.10.2013 for cancelling the joint patta in patta no.3131 which has been numbered as Revision Petition No.7651 of 2013 has not been considered to date, the petitioner is before this Court for a mandamus to the 1st respondent to dispose of the same.

2. The revision relates to the petitioner's request for cancellation of the joint patta and to issue a separate patta in her name in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.468/2 measuring an extent of 65 cents at Nilakottai Village and Taluk, Dindigul District. The petitioner would claim a right to the property on the basis of the purchase of the same by her father-in-law in the year 1997. On his demise, the property devolved on the petitioner's husband Rajakumar and he in turn had executed a registered gift in favour of the petitioner in the year 2003. The petitioner

would submit that the respondents 3 and 4 had created a forged sale deeds bearing document nos.3166 of 2007 and 1212 of 2008 based upon which they had applied for a patta and obtained it from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has sent a representation on 11.07.2016 and 18.07.2016 to the 2nd respondent not to give patta and pointing out that on 25.10.2010, the petitioner had got an interim order. Therefore, the 2nd respondent had issued proceedings that in view of the Civil Court order, the patta transfer application cannot be entertained.

3. The petitioner would submit that on the strength of the forged sale deeds, the respondents 3 and 4 had obtained a joint patta. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the revision before the 1st respondent which is yet to see the end of the day. Therefore, the writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

5. Taking note of the fact that the revision has been filed in the year 2013 and the same had not been considered to date, a mandamus is

issued to the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's revision petition in Revision Petition No.7651 of 2013 and pass orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

12.09.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gbg To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul District.

2.The Tahsildar, Nilamottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

P.T.ASHA, J.

gbg 12.09.2024