TIRUNELVELI DIOCESE TRUST ASSOCIATION Vs. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23. 01. 2002 passed by the second respondent, under which, the second respondent, while setting aside the order dated 31. 07. 2000 passed by the District Revenue officer, Tirunelveli, has directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to include the name of the first respondent as a joint pattadar in respect of S. No. 149 (T. S. No. 59/1), Palayamchettikulam Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli district, along with the writ petitioner. The said impugned order was passed by the second respondent in the revision filed by the first respondent challenging the order dated 31. 07. 2000 passed by the District Revenue Officer, tirunelveli.

(2.) THE facts involved in the present case are as follows: the petitioner is a registered minority religious trust. The trust has obtained 10. 05 acres of land in S. No. 149 in Palayamchettikulam Village on a perpetual lease from one Kumarasamiah Pillai under a lease deed dated 1. 11. 1927. The petitioner trust has also purchased another extent of 6. 22. 5 acres of land in S. No. 149 in the same village from the said Kumarasamiah pillai himself under a registered sale deed dated 7. 12. 1951. The petitioner trust has also purchased another extent of 7. 25 acres of land from one nellainayagam Pillai under a registered sale deed dated 31. 03. 1954. In addition to the said properties, the petitioner trust is in possession of 3. 12 acres of land adversely for more than 100 years. After the death of kumarasamiah Pillai, the first respondent, being his son, has succeeded to his properties. Problem arose in September 1996 when the Zonal Deputy Thasildar by his order dated 03. 09. 1996 included the name of the first respondent as a joint pattadar in Patta No. 257. Based on the same, the first respondent also appears to have paid kist. According to the petitioner, the said order of the zonal Deputy Thasildar was set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer by his order dated 16. 06. 1999. On an appeal preferred by the first respondent before the third respondent namely, the District Revenue Officer, the third respondent by his order dated 31. 07. 2000, confirmed the order of the Revenue divisional Officer namely, the fourth respondent, virtually setting aside the order of the Thasildar (R5 ). The first respondent again preferred a revision before the second respondent and the second respondent, by the impugned order dated 23. 01. 2002, set aside the order of the District Revenue Officer and confirmed the order of the Thasildar (R5) granting joint patta to the first respondent along with the petitioner trust. According to the petitioner, the first respondent sold 10. 05 acres of land to the sixth respondent on 22. 01. 2001 and after having sold the said land to the sixth respondent, the first respondent filed a suit to the effect that what was sold was only one acre. The said sale by the first respondent to the sixth respondent took place when the revision before the second respondent was pending. In the mean time, the first respondent filed two suits in O. S. Nos. 463/1997 and 7 0/1997, one praying for a declaration and possession against the petitioner and another for a permanent injunction not to put up any construction. By a common judgment dated 28. 09. 2001, both the suits were dismissed on the ground of limitation and also on the ground that there is already a hospital in existence in the suit property. The appeals filed by the first respondent in a. S. Nos. 291/2001 and 52/2002 were also dismissed on 08. 10. 2003 and it is stated that the first respondent has filed S. A. No. 1594/2004 before the Madurai bench of this court, in which there is an order of stay and the appeal is pending. According to the petitioner, even though the impugned order states that the first respondent's name should be included as the joint pattadar, the fifth respondent chose to issue a separate patta in favour of the first respondent on 22. 08. 2003, against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the fourth respondent, who confirmed the order of the fifth respondent by order dated 09. 02. 2004. The third respondent also confirmed the order passed by the fifth respondent by order dated 18. 06. 2004 and in the revision filed before the second respondent, he confirmed the order of the fifth respondent by order dated 1 6. 08. 2004. The petitioner also relies upon a letter dated 27. 12. 2004 of the Village Administrative Officer, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is in possession of 26 acres of land.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. A. Immanuel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while passing the impugned order, the second respondent had failed to consider the reasoning given by the Revenue Divisional Officer (R4 ). Further, the learned counsel, while relying upon the impugned order itself, would state that the second respondent had stated that "even though no clear title is produced by both the parties for the remaining extent of 10. 28 acres out of 32. 75 acres in S. No. 149, it seems that Kumarasamiah Pillai has some right over the land". Learned counsel for the petitioner would also state that the second respondent has passed the impugned order granting joint patta, without even specifically mentioning as to what right the first respondent has got over the land in question. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is in possession of the entire property and therefore the question of joint patta does not arise.