A. ASIRUL FASIL REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER AGENT, S. AHAMED MUSTAFA Vs. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER CUM ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent made in Na. Ka. B5/CR/12/2011, dated 07.10.2011 as well as the order of the second respondent dated 26.05.2011 made in Na. Ka. No. A6/1475/2010, and quash the same and pass suitable orders directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property in S. No. 182/5, Vattanam Group, Thiruvadanai Taluk and Ramanathapuram District. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner, are as follows:

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, it is inter alia contended as follows:

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the property in dispute was sold to him by Naina Lebbai who is the father of the fourth respondent. Ever since the purchase, he has been in absolute possession and enjoyment and patta also was issued in his favour on 13.12.2002. While so, the very same property has been sold by the fourth respondent in parts in favour of many parties as if it is some other property. Based on the same, the second respondent has cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner and restored the patta in favour of the father of the fourth respondent after enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, who has dismissed the appeal with a direction to the petitioner to approach this Court. Further, when there is a dispute regarding title, the 2nd respondent cannot change the patta but can only direct the parties to approach the civil Court.