AMSAVENI Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order, dated 25.06.2012, passed by the first respondent herein, in and by which the order, dated 12.10.2009, passed by the second respondent herein was set at naught, thereby transferring the patta in favour of the fourth respondent herein.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she purchased land to an extent of 4 acres and 7 cents in R.S.No.171/1, situated at Siruthur Village, Thiruppalai Group, Madurai North Taluk, by means of a registered sale deed, dated 05.12.2005 from one Mrs.L.Neelambigai. After execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the said Mrs.L.Neelambigai executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the fourth respondent herein, on 08.10.2007, in respect of a portion of the property sold to the petitioner to an extent of two acres and 29 cents, out of 4 acres and 7 cents and subsequently, she cancelled the settlement deed by means of registered document, dated 09.11.2007. Thereafter, the said Mrs.L.Neelambigai executed a registered consent deed, on 21.04.2008, in favour of the petitioner, thereby confirming the sale deed, dated 05.12.2005. Even though settlement deed dated 07.07.1977 was executed, possession was not handed over, and therefore, it was cancelled, on 21.03.2005. While so, the fourth respondent applied before the third respondent for sub - division of property and issuance of patta on the basis of settlement deed, dated 08.10.2007. On the basis of the said request, the third respondent sub-divided the property and issued patta in favour of the fourth respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, who, in turn cancelled the order of the third respondent and directed to issue patta in favour of the petitioner. As against the same, a revision was filed by the fourth respondent before the first respondent. By the impugned order, dated 25.06.2012, the first respondent set aside the order of the second respondent and directed the third respondent to issue patta in favour of the fourth respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. The third respondent, before effecting sub division of the property, has not afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that in respect of the very same property, the fourth respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.107 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, against the petitioner and the same is pending. In support of his contention, the learned counsel makes reliance upon the decision of this Court in T.R.Dinakaran Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, 2012 3 CTC 823.