NITHYAKALYANI Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, MADURAI DIVISION, MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent, viz., District Revenue Officer, Madurai, dtd. 3/12/2020.

(2.) I have heard Mr.P.Balamurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. I have also gone through the records.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the subject property was standing in the name of the petitioner's father, viz., Veyelumuthu Yogeswarar even from the year 1946 pursuant to the order passed by the then Collector Madurai, in Ni.Mu.No.13087/46 on 30/1/1946. The revenue records including patta, chitta, Adangal have always been in the name of the petitioner's father up to 2006. According to the petitioner on 1/9/2006, the petitioner's father settled the property in the petitioner's favour by document No.6994/2006, and thereafter, the petitioner has mutated revenue records in her name and has been in enjoyment of the subject property. However, the respondents 2 and 3 temple have projected a version as if patta was mutated in the name of the petitioner only in T.R dtd. 15/10/2018 by the Madurai West Tahsildar and earlier the subject property was only in the name of the third respondent temple.