MOHAMED FAROOK Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PUDUKKOTTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WP(MD).No.6105 of 2012 has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to transfer patta relating to S.F.No.558/2, Sammattividuthi Village, Pudukkottai Taluk, in the name of the petitioners and respondents 4 to 6.

(2.) WP(MD).No.3969 of 2012 has been filed challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Trichy on 20/2/2012 under which the authorities have directed the Sub Inspector ( Land Reforms) to effect mutation in the Village and Taluk account as Government surplus Tharisu and send a report to him. The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(MD).No.6015 of 2012 has contended as follows:

(3.) The petitioners and the respondents 4 to 6 are said to have been purchased an extent of 16/39/50 Hectare in Survey No.558/2 from one Santha and his son under a registered sale deed dtd. 13/1/2005. According to the petitioners, the revenue records were also standing in the name of the vendors and thereafter, patta was also transferred in the name of the petitioners and respondents 4 to 6 by an order of the third respondent dtd. 27/11/2006. Thereafter, relevant entries were made in 'A' Register, Adangal and Chitta. The second respondent had issued an order regarding the properties purchased by them to change the classification as Government Ceiling Waste. Only thereafter, they came to know that the third respondent has unilaterally changed the patta granted in favour of the petitioners in the name of the second respondent without giving any notice or without hearing the petitioners about the property. Based on the unilateral communication sent by the second respondent, the third respondent has effected mutation in the revenue records without issuing notice to the writ petitioners in whose name patta was standing. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to again change patta in the name of the petitioners and the respondents 4 to 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(MD).No.3989 of 2012 has contended as follows: