K NAWABJAN Vs. R S RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Fourth Respondent has projected this writ appeal as against the order of the learned single Judge dated 03.08.2001 in W.P.No.5137 of 1995 in ordering the writ petition with a direction being issued to the Respondents 2 and 3/Respondents 1 and 2 to resume the land under dispute and treat the same as Government Poramboke land, classifying as a 'pathway' in accordance with the original records.

(2.) Dissatisfied with the order of the learned single Judge in ordering the writ petition filed by the First Respondent/Petitioner, the Appellant/Fourth Respondent has projected this writ appeal before this Court.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the Appellant/Fourth Respondent, the learned single Judge while ordering the writ petition should have seen that patta in respect of the land in question was not granted in favour of the Appellant/Fourth Respondent for the first time and that the land was assigned originally to subramania Gurukkal by the then District Collector on 12.05.2003 and moreover, the Appellant's father purchased the land from the said Subramania Gurukkal by means of sale deed dated 10.06.1935 and subsequently, after the death of the Appellant's father, a partition was effected in respect of his share on 19.12.1947 and by means of partition only, the land was allotted to the Appellant/Fourth Respondent and that the patta bearing No.2813 stood in his name. It is the further contention on the side of the Appellant/Fourth Respondent that the First Respondent/Writ Petitioner was a tenant of the Appellant/Fourth Respondent and in between them, there was Rent Control Proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 in respect of the shop measuring 9' X 15' square feet in the occupation of the First Respondent/Petitioner which formed part of the building standing on the piece of the land comprised in S.No.1890/4. But these vital aspects of the matter have not been appreciated by the learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition.