N. RAMAMOORTHY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject lands are Natham lands and even as early as in the year 1955, there was a registered partition deed in document No.834 of 1955, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Ramanathapuram. The petitioner's father's brother namely Parthasarathy became entitled to portion of the property, which was the subject matter of the said partition deed. The said Parthasarathy during his lifetime being in possession and enjoyment of the lands allotted to him and the said partitioned portion was using it as a cattle shed and he has executed a Will on 25/6/1997 in favour of his daughter Lakshmi Prabha. After the lifetime of the said Parathasarathy, his daughter Lakshmi Prabha was in enjoyment of the subject lands, which were bequeathed to her father. Thereafter, the said Lakshmi Prabha in and by the settlement deed dtd. 23/7/2015 in document No. 2301/2015, on the file the Sub-Registrar, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District, has settled the property in favour of her elder brother P.Rajasekaran. The said Rajasekaran in and by the sale deed dtd. 27/4/2018 has conveyed the property in favour of the writ petitioner.

(3.) It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of petitioner's purchase, there was a compound Wall and other structures in a dilapidated condition. It is the further case of the petitioner that after purchase, he has renovated the old structures, which were in existence for more than 65 years and based on his purchase and enjoyment of the property, he has applied for mutation of patta in his name. It is the further case of the petitioner that the lands have always been Natham Government Poramboke lands, however in the village account, it has been reflected as vacant land/Sarkar poramboku. It is also the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner would also placed reliance on the Division Bench of this Court in the Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat Vs. Swaminathan and others reported in 2004(3) CTC 270.