P. RAMESH Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed with a prayer to direct the second respondent to drop all further proceedings in respect of cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioner in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No. 2824/2015/ P which is posted for enquiry on 20/07/2016 pertaining to the property being the land together with the superstructure thereon constituting house, comprised in 1.Survey No. 150/9C, land of an extent of hectare 0.02.5, acre 0.06 cents 2.Survey No. 150/10A, land of an extent of hectare 0.01.5, acre 0.03 cents 3.Survey No. 150/10B, land of an extent of hectare 0.11.0, acre 0.27 cents 4.Survey No. 150/11A, land of an extent of hectare 0.02.0, acre 0.05 cents 5.Survey No. 150/11C, land of an extent of hectare 0.16.0, acre 0.40, in all the lands of an extent of hectare 0.33.0, bearing Patta No.573, situated in Desavilakku (North) Village Hamlet, Tharamangalam Village, Thuttampatty Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District and consequently refrain the second respondent from passing any such order in respect of the aforesaid property.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition it is stated by the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the properties comprised in five different sub divisions of the same survey number and other properties mentioned in the prayer. It is his further case that the property was originally belonged to one Chinnathai Ammal wife of Chinnathanur Gounder. It is further stated that the Chinnathai Ammal died intestate leaving behind one Sithan and three others. It is also stated that the legal heirs of Chinnathai Ammal effected an oral partition in respect of the properties and that the properties which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition were allotted to the father of the petitioner by name Perumal. It is admitted that the fourth respondent is the son of one Sithan who is also one of the legal heir of Chinnathai Ammal. The petitioner claimed titled over the property on the basis of subsequent partition deed dated 05.01.2011, which is among the Legal heirs of Perumal namely the father of the petitioner. It is admitted before this Court that the daughter of Chinnathai Ammal filed a suit in O.S. No.233 of 2013, on the file of Sub Court, Mettur, seeking partition on the ground that the oral partition pleaded by the petitioner is not valid and binding on her. It is the specific case of the petitioner that based on the partition deed, patta for the property was changed in the name of the petitioner and that the partition of the year 2011 was also acted upon by execution of a settlement deed.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent filed an appeal before the second respondent challenging transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the patta had been obtained in the name of the petitioner suppressing the material facts and the existence of other legal heirs of Chinnathai Ammal. It is stated that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to cancel the patta once granted in favour of the petitioner. It is also stated that during the pendency of the civil suit, the second respondent ought not to have entertained the petition filed by the fourth respondent challenging the order of Tahsildar granting patta in favour of the petitioner. It is admitted before this Court that the second respondent has conducted an enquiry based on the representation of the fourth respondent regarding cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioner. It is further admitted that the final order was also passed on 31.10.2016, by the second respondent canceling the order of Tahsildar transferring the patta in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated in the said order that the name of the petitioner should be removed and the patta should be restored to its original position. By virtue of the order passed by the second respondent, the patta was restored in the name of Chinnathai Ammal, the original owner of the property.