V SRINIVASAN Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent, dated 01.07.2002 and to direct the first respondent to maintain the revenue records as per the proceedings of the third respondent dated 30.07.1987.

(2.) The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner claims that he had occupied an extent of 788 sq.ft in T.S.No.321, Block No.33 in Ward B of Maravaneri Village, Salem Taluk in or about 1954 and he has also put up a residential house on the property. The father of the fourth respondent one Subramanian Gurukkal filed O.S.No.1691/1984 on the file of the Principal, District Munsif Court, Salem for permanent injunction, from in any manner altering the physical features and superstructure in the property and claimed that the property was lease out to the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, since the fourth respondent's father died, the suit was dismissed as abated by Judgment dated 27.02.1990. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the said Subramanian Gurukkal including the fourth respondent issued a legal notice dated 01.11.1987 to the petitioner stating that the vacant site was leased out to the petitioner and he had constructed a thatched sheet and therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.21/- per month for three years. The petitioner sent a reply on 29.11.1987 and denied the allegations. Thereafter, the fourth respondent and other legal heirs of Subramanian Gurukkal filed O.S.No.1161 of 1988 on the file of the Principal, District Munsif Court, Salem for recovery of possession and mesne profits, the said suit came to be dismissed for default on 01.02.1995.

(3.) Even prior to these proceedings, the petitioner had applied to the Tahsildar for grant of Patta and the Tahsildar after taking note of the objections of the fourth respondent by proceedings dated 30.07.1987, included the petitioner's name in the Patta along with others in respect of an extent of 788 sq. ft in T.S.No.321. Against such order, the fourth respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem and the appellate authority by order dated 18.10.1989, directed status-quo to be maintained as it existed prior to the order passed by the Tahsildar, since Civil suit was pending between the parties and directed the parties to get their title determined by Civil Court. As against such order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the second respondent and the second respondent by order dated 20.12.1993, remanded the matter to the third respondent for fresh consideration. On remand, the third respondent by order dated 08.11.1996, held that the earlier order passed by the Tahsildar dated 30.07.1987 is incorrect and directed the revenue records to be restored in the name of Subramanian Gurukkal. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioner filed the revision petition before the first respondent and the first respondent by order dated 01.07.2002, dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made elaborate submission on the facts and brought to the notice of this Court, all the documents filed in the typed set of papers commencing from the sale deed from 09.05.1950, executed in favour of the fourth respondent's father and the various proceedings of the respondents 1 to 3 as well as the decree passed in the Civil suits and contended that since, the suit filed that the fourth respondent's father for permanent injunction was dismissed and the subsequent suit filed by the fourth respondent and other legal heirs for recovery of possession was also dismissed and the 1st respondent ought to have restored the order dated 30.07.1987. The learned counsel would further submit that the predecessor in title of the fourth respondent had purchased only an extent of 675 sq. ft. out of 2847 sq. ft and the question of granting patta for entire extent in the name of Subramanian Gurukkal does not arise. The learned counsel further submit that the first respondent erred in observing that the patta granted by the settlement authority is final irrespective of the enjoyment of the property. That the suit for recovery of possession having been dismissed, the fourth respondent is prevented under law from making any claim to the property in question. Further, by placing reliance on the legal notice dated 01.11.1987, it is contended that the case of the fourth respondent was that the petitioner took the vacant site on monthly rent. Thus, based on all these facts, the learned counsel would contended that the order of the first respondent is erroneous. Further, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Hon'ble Full Bench decision of this Court, reported in Srinivasan and Six others Vs. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami and others, 1998 1 CTC 630, which was subsequently followed in B.Jayachandran Vs. Vasanthamani and others, 2010 2 CTC 860, in support of his contentions.