LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-621

THAYUMANAVAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On January 18, 2019
Thayumanavan Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a larger relief, now, he restricts his prayer only to direct the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the Appeal filed by him, dated 22.11.2017, with regard to change of Patta in respect of the Land in S.Nos.423/2D and 424/1B of Sengal Village Group, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the property in S.Nos.423/2D and 424/1B of Sengal Village Group, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District, measuring an extent of 0.71.0 Ares and some other properties were belonging to his grandfather viz., Marudhanayagam Pillai and the Patta also stood in his name till 1984. The said Marudhanayagam Pillai had 6 children viz., Malaikoluntha Pillai, who is the petitioner's father, Munia Pillai, Vairaperumal, Chinnamuniya Pillai, Arumugam Pillai and Bomman. Since there was a partition dispute between them regarding their joint family properties, a family partition was made. Accordingly, the lands in S.Nos.423/2D and 424/1B of Sengal Village Group, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District, measuring an extent of 0.71.0 Ares were allotted to his father Malaikoluntha Pillai and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. But, after UDR, the Patta was changed to the name of one Saraswathi. In the meantime, the respondents 5 and 6 are claiming right over the said properties and they are trying to grab the said lands with the help of the revenue officials.

(3.) On 17.08.2017, the respondents 5 and 6 filed a suit in O.S.No. 192 of 2017 before the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai, seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner and his son viz., Chandrasekar and his brother Arumugam and the same is pending trial. Since the respondents 5 and 6 have been making attempt to cut and sell the grown up valuable trees standing in the said disputed lands, on 20.11.2017, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the fourth respondent not to provide any police protection to the respondents 5 and 6 to cut and sell the trees in the said lands.