K.KASINATHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in Pa.Mu.A1.842/2008 dated 25.08.2008 and the subsequent order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.B1/18774/2010 dated 22.05.2010.

(2.) According to the petitioner, originally the property in Survey No.85/2 to an extent of 0.07.0 ares, Vijayapuram Village, Devakottai Taluk belonged to his father Karuppiah, which is an ancestral property. After the demise of his father, the entire family properties were partitioned and the above mentioned property was allotted to the petitioner and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter, the patta of the said property was wrongly transferred to his younger brother K.Chinnaih. Hence, the petitioner submitted an application before the fifth respondent seeking for change of patta in his name and subsequently patta was changed in his name with the consent of his brother K.Chinniah. In the mean time, the respondents 6 and 7 have preferred an appeal before the fourth respondent seeking cancellation of patta in favour of the petitioner on the basis that the said property was a joint family property. Subsequently, the fourth respondent, without issuing notice to the petitioner, vide dated 25.08.2008 cancelled the patta and changed it as a joint patta in the name of the petitioner and other two brothers, respondents 6 and 7. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the third respondent seeking to set aside the order passed by the fourth respondent, but the third respondent, vide order dated 22.05.2010, dismissed the same. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the petitioner has to approach the civil Court in the light of the decisions made by this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar Vs. The District Revenue Officer and others reported in (1995) 1 MLJ 426, in which, this Court has held as follows:-