OMANDUR VILLAGE PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.18799 of 2003 that the property covered in Survey Nos.357/7A and 357/7C of Omandur Village originally belonged to one P.M.Perianna Pillai, who donated the same to the village temple. In the said land, the people of the said village, after collecting the money, constructed a Kalyanamandapam to utilize the revenue for the temple. Thereafter, the Tahsildar has issued patta in the name of the President of the Village clearly mentioning that the property covered in Survey Nos.357/7A and 357/7C belongs to the Omandur Village. Whileso, when an application was filed by the fourth respondent for change of patta in his favour on the ground that he has purchased the land from the third respondent-Palaniammal, the Tahsildar sent a communication dated 18.02.2002 to the petitioner calling for an enquiry to be held on 25.02.2002 at 11 a.m. with regard to change of patta. Thereafter, on receipt of the communication, the petitioner went to the office of the second respondent and waited till 5 p.m., but there was no enquiry held on that date and after some time, he was informed by the Section Clerk that a communication would be sent regarding the next date of hearing. But, without informing any further date for enquiry, the second respondent, all of a sudden, issued an order transferring the patta in respect of the property in favour of the fourth respondent.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court three documents, namely, sale deed dated 17.08.2006 executed by one Thailammaiammal in favour of the fourth respondent, a copy of the water tax receipt dated 11.08.2001 carrying the name of the fourth respondent and the death certificate dated 04.03.2009 issued by the VAO. By showing these three documents, it was argued that though the impugned order dated 02.11.2001 was passed cancelling the name of the petitioner, in the said impugned order it was also recorded by the second respondent that Kamatchiammal, who was the mother of third respondent-Palaniammal and Thailammaiammal, who was aunt to the said Palaniammal, were dead. Therefore, when the second respondent recorded the death of Thailammaiammal on 02.11.2001, the death certificate issued by the revenue authorities showing the death of Thailammaiammal as 27.09.2008 goes to depict that the order of Tahsildar was obtained fraudulently. On that basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.

(3.) THOUGH this argument of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent appears to be appealing one, the way in which the second respondent granted patta cancelling the name of the petitioner without holding proper enquiry is required to be interfered with, for yet another reason that in the impugned order dated 02.11.2001, the second respondent recorded that the aunt of the third respondent-Palaniammal was no more on the date of the impugned order, but, surprisingly, the death certificate dated 04.03.2009 filed before this Court shows that the said Thailammaiammal died only on 27.09.2008, therefore, it is clear that the respondents 3 and 4 misguided the Tahsildar for getting patta in their favour. Hence, for the reasons stated above, the second respondent-Tahsildar is directed to rehear both parties after giving proper notice and thereafter, he is at liberty to pass proper orders on merits in respect of issuing patta as expeditiously as possible.