P. SAMINATHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order of this Court and directing the respondents to consider the representation, dated 03.12.2012 for issuance of notice to participate in the enquiry which would be conducted by the respondent while deciding the patta in respect of the property bearing Survey No. 184/1 Maadhapur Village measuring an extent of 7 acres and 57 cents and thus render justice.

(2.) THE property in Maadhapur Village bearing S.No. 184/1 measuring an extent of 7 acres and 56 cents belongs to the petitioner and his brother's wife. The said property was purchased by the petitioner and his brother's wife on 27.12.1981. From the date of purchase, they were in possession and enjoyment of the property. The National Highways Department had acquired 3 acres and 60 cents in the aforesaid property. The Revenue Authorities issued notice to the petitioner and his brother's wife before acquisition and the petitioner and others took part in the enquiry. The Revenue Authorities passed an award. Due to the non compliance of the award amount by the Revenue Authorities, the petitioner gave a representation to refer the matter to the Sub Court. Then the case was numbered in Sub Court as L.A.O.P.No. 2 of 2011 praying for enhancement of compensation. Before acquisition, the authorities after due verification of revenue records and considering the petitioner's possession and enjoyment had issued notice and passed the award. While that being the fact, one Chellammal @ Chellathal who is no way connected with the property in question filed a suit against some third persons and obtained a decree on the file of Sub Judge, Tirupur as if she is entitled to the property on the basis of the Will. Thereafter, the said Chellammal @ Chellathal sent a representation to the respondent to transfer patta in her favour. The alleged Will is a forged one and the decree obtained by the said Chellammal is not binding on the petitioner, in as much as the petitioner is not a party to the suit filed by the said Chellammal. By suppressing the true facts, the said Chellammal has given a representation to the respondents on the basis of the forged documents claiming patta.

(3.) THE limited prayer of the petitioner in the Writ Petition is to consider his representation, dated 03.12.2012 for issuance of notice to participate in the enquiry which would be conducted by the second respondent / Tahsildar, Palladam, while deciding, the patta in respect of the property bearing S.No. 184/1 Maadhapur Village, measuring an extent of 7 acres and 57 cents.