K. SUBRAMANIAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in No.Nil, dated 22.04.2011, changing the patta for 0.33.0 Ares of lands situate in S.Nos.84/12 and 84/11B2 of Pathinettankudi Village, Madurai Taluk, Madurai District in the name of 7th respondent, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to restore the original entry.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner viz. K.Subramanian, Meenakshi Sundaram, Nagarajan and Ganesan jointly purchased 81 1/2 cents of land in S.Nos.84/12 and 84/11B of Pathinettankudi Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District by way of registered sale deed bearing No.1087/1972, dated 10.05.1972. All of them are joint owners of the property and they were jointly running a business namely Pandian Rubber Industry in the above premises. Patta was also issued in respect of the said property in patta No.626 in the name of Pandian Rubber Factory for 0.09.0 Ares in S.Nos.84/11B2 and 0.24.0 Ares in S.No.84/12. All of them jointly mortgaged the property to SIDCO and obtained loan. Subsequently, they could not run the business profitably and hence, they closed the business. The above said 81 cents of lands have been in their joint possession and enjoyment. While so, one of the partners, Meenakshi Sundaram died on 26.06.2004, leaving behind the petitioners 2 and 3 as his legal heirs and another partner Nagarajan died on 04.06.2007, leaving behind the petitioners 4 to 6 as his legal heirs. The respondents 5 and 6 are the legal heirs of deceased partner Ganesan. While so, in August, 2013, the 7th respondent Rukmani herein proclaimed that she has purchased their land from respondents 5 and 6, who are the legal heirs of deceased Partner Ganesan. Later, the petitioners came to know that respondents 5 and 6 have fraudulently sold the entire land to the 7th respondent by a sale deed dated 19.01.2011. In fact, the respondents 5 and 6 are having only 1/4th share in the above lands. But they executed the sale deed as if they are the owners of the entire lands. Hence, the second petitioner gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai. But, no action has been taken. Further, based on the said sale deed dated 19.01.2011, patta which stood in the name of Pandian Rubber Factory was changed in the name of 7th respondent by RTR File No.483/2011. The respondents 5 and 6 are only having 1/4th share. The 8th respondent and his wife the 7th respondent have fraudulently created document as if the 7th respondent purchased the entire land and the 8th respondent attested the same, knowing well it contains false details. The 7th respondent has fraudulently produced the above said forged sale deed before the revenue authorities and changed the patta in her name. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition to quash the impugned order of the 4th respondent dated 22.04.2011.

(3.) WHEN the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has raised the question of jurisdiction of Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Kottampatti to pass the order, he is not pressing the said ground as according to Section 2(10) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, a Tahsildar also include the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar.