T.PANNEERSELVAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. No.26508 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned proceedings bearing Na.Ka.A3/5454/2013 dated 25.08.2014 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram, the second respondent herein and seeking to forbear the second respondent from proceeding with the enquiry in respect of his property in S.No.93/1 - 0.25 cents situated at Sorapur Village, Villupuram Taluk. W.P. No.26969 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned proceedings bearing Pa.Mu.A3/5454/2013 dated 12.09.2014 and seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to modify the Patta No.33 and 'A' Register in respect of the property in S.No.93/1 - 10.50 ares (0.25 cents) situated at Sorapur Village, Villupuram Taluk.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the land in question covered in S.No.93/1 to an extent of 0.25 cents belongs to the petitioner's father. Later on, when family partition took place, it was allotted to the petitioner's mother Vimala on 16.09.2009. Thereafter, she executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the petitioner's son minor Udayanithi on 29.03.2012 showing the petitioner as guardian. Since there were some civil disputes faced by the petitioner, an Original Suit in O.S. No.385 of 2012 was filed on the file of the learned District Munsif, Villupuram seeking decree for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction for transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner rightly impleading the fourth respondent herein as fifth defendant. Adding further learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that after receiving the summons, the fourth respondent herein namely, the fifth defendant did not contest the suit. Therefore, the District Munsif Court passed an exparte judgment and decree on 23.07.2013. Due to the delay occurred, the fourth respondent herein has filed an application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree that was rejected and as against the same, a Civil Revision Petition has been filed and the same has not been numbered which shows that the fourth respondent/fifth defendant does not evince any interest. Since the patta has been showing the names of the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein, the petitioner gave a representation on 25.09.2013 to the Tahsildar, Villupuram to issue a separate patta in favour of the petitioner's son Udayanithi. But, for the reasons best known to the Tahsildar, he has referred the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram, the second respondent herein, who has issued a notice of enquiry calling upon the petitioner and the fourth respondent to take part in the enquiry. As the notice of enquiry issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram is without jurisdiction and as a matter of fact the Tahsildar is the competent authority to issue a separate patta, the petitioner filed the above W.P. No.26508 of 2014 challenging the correctness of the above Proceedings dated 25.08.2014. In the meanwhile, another impugned Proceeding has been passed holding that the petitioner is not entitled to have the patta in respect of 7 cents which is against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Villupuram.

(3.) Referring to Section 10 of the Patta Pass Book Act 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has rightly made an application before the Tahsildar with a request to make a small modification in the patta which has been already issued, removing the name of the fourth respondent and retaining the name of the petitioner. But, for the reasons best known to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent herein, he has issued the impugned Proceedings calling upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry on the complaint given by the fourth respondent.