M VEERANAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed, challenging the order passed by the second respondent, cancelling the patta stands in the name of the petitioner and directed to issue patta in the name of the original owner of the property viz., Senthilaathiban.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

(3.) The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the legal heirs of the deceased Senthilaathiban has filed an application before the second respondent seeking to cancel the patta granted in favour of the petitioner on the ground that he has forged the signature of the deceased Senthilaathiban and created a sale agreement in his favour and based on the above forged sale agreement, he filed the said suit for specific performance and obtained an ex parte decree and based on the decree passed in the specific performance suit, a sale deed has also been executed in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, on the basis of the complaint given by the mother of the fourth respondent, a case has been registered in Crime No.109 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District against the petitioner and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the matter was taken on file in C.C.No.605 of 2014 on the file of the Mahila Sessions Judge, Madurai and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, fourth respondent and the legal heirs of the deceased Senthilaathiban have filed a CRP(MD)No.2003 of 2011 before this Court and the same is also pending. Further, based on the petition given by the legal heirs of the deceased Senthilaathiban, the second respondent has called for report from the Village Administrative Officer and Tahsildar. They have also filed report stating that only the legal heirs of the deceased Senthilaathiban are in possession and enjoyment of the property. In view of the pendency of criminal case against the petitioner and also pendency of the above said Civil Revision Petition before this Court, the second respondent cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner.