MUNIYAMMAL THIRUVADI Vs. TAHSILDAR, ETTAYAPURAM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two Writ Petitions as well as the Contempt Petition were filed by one and the same person. The petitioner one Muniyammal Thiruvadi represented by her power agent by name M. Dhanasekaran filed these two Writ Petitions. In W.P(MD).No.2578 of 2009, the petitioner sought to challenge the order dated 19.03.2009 issued by the first respondent, the Tahsildar, Ettayapuram Taluk, Tuticorin District, to set aside the same and to pass orders on the representation dated 22.09.2008, after conducting an enquiry and also to issue a patta in respect of Survey No.213/9 in Ilampuvanam Village, measuring 0.36.5 Hectares in favour of the petitioner. The second Writ Petition [W.P.(MD)No.11844 of 2010] is of a general nature.

(2.) When the Writ Petition being W.P(MD).No.2578 of 2009 came up for admission, this Court, after issuing notice on 01.04.2009, permitted private notice and granted an order of status quo with reference to the patta. The Writ Petition was directed to be posted on 16.04.2009. On 16.04.2009 since service was not completed, the Writ Petition was directed to be posted after filing proof of service and the interim order granted was extended till completion of service. Alleging that the said interim order has been disobeyed, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition being Contempt Petition (MD)No.657 of 2010. The allegation made by the petitioner was that the respondent, the Tahsildar has willfully disobeyed the order and by an order dated 30.08.2010, he has transferred the patta in favour of one Suseela Rani.

(3.) It transpires that the said Suseela Rani has earlier filed a Writ Petition being W.P(MD).No.2438 of 2009 seeking for a direction claiming that she was the owner of the property and her representation dated 24.07.2008 for the grant of patta was to be considered by the Tahsildar, Ettayappuram Taluk, Tuticorin District. In that Writ Petition, the present petitioner was cited as the fourth respondent and the order records shows that he had not entered appearance in this case. When a person gets a direction from this Court to the Tahsildar, he is also bound to act on the basis of the order passed by this Court and for passing contradictory orders, the subordinate officers cannot be found fault with. The complaint of the petitioner was that he was not heard at the time of passing such direction. In any event, the petitioner himself has chosen to challenge the order dated 30.08.2010 in the subsequent Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.11844 of 2010.