ALAGAMMAL Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Pa. Mu (P1) 61787/94 dated 09. 11. 1995 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioner has purchased the property from one Nalachandran, son of Manickam Pillai and Manickam Pillai executed released deed in favour of Nalachandran. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for patta to the Special Tahsildar, Natham UDR Scheme, the second respondent herein. But the second respondent did not grant patta to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an appeal to the third respondent, the Assistant Settlement Officer. The third respondent allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the second respondent. He stated in his order that both parties are not entitled for patta and they should approach the Civil Court to prove their claim and patta. Against that order, fourth respondent/lakhsmiammal, wife of Manickam pillai preferred a revision before the District Revenue Officer. The District Revenue Officer set aside the order of the third respondent and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent and also granted patta in favour of the fourth respondent's husband viz. , Manickampillai. The present writ petition has been challenged against the grant of patta in favour of the fourth respondent.

(3.) CONSIDERING the fact that this case relates to a Civil Right of parties relating to title of the properties, which can be decided only by the competent Civil Court on adducing evidence of both sides. The writ court cannot decide this issue under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.