AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
The two petitioners who are the resident of Subburaj Nagar, Bodinaiakkanur, Theni District have filed the present writ petition seeking to
challenge the order passed by the Tahsildar, Bodinaiakanoor.
The second respondent herein in subdividing the property and granting patta in favour of the third respondent, the property in which
S.No.389/1C3 was sub divided, 389/1C3A and 389/1C3B to the total extent of 15.83 acres was divided into 1.12 acres in favour of the third
respondent and 14.71 acres in favour of the petitioners.
It is seen from the impugned order that the third respondent made an application on 29.12.2008 to the Tahsildar and report was called for from
the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, on the basis of the inspection report, dated 17.04.2009 referred to these documents, the sub division was made and
the name was included in the patta in patta No.6220.
The petitioners aggrieved by the sub division of the property and giving patta too totally to a stranger, have filed the present writ petition.
When the matter came up on 22.01.2011, this Court ordered notice of motion.
It is seen from the records that the petitioners are instituted a suit before the District Munsif Court at Bodinaiakannur in O.S.No.50 of 2010
claiming a relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and possession of the property. In the schedule to the plaint, they have claimed the
ownership of 17 acres and 80 cents in S.No.389/1C4 and 7 acres and 12 cents in S.No.389/1C in the second schedule of property in
S.No.391/4 to the extent of 18 acres and 20 cents in S.No.389/1C(concerned the present case) as well as the fourth item of property in
S.No.391/3 to the extent of 6 acres and 15 cents. In the suit, the defendants are one M. Murugan, S/o. Mookathevar and M. Ammathai, W/o.
Mookathevar residing in Pilliyarkoil Street, Kuppinayakkanpatti, Bodinaiakkanur.
The contention raised by the petitioners in the suit was that those two defendants have made forged documents are attempting to encroach the
property and the petitioners are the sole owners of the property and the it cannot be interfered with by the third parties. While the suit was
pending, according to the petitioners that the third respondent on the strength of the sale deed dated 10.01.2008 purchased from Karuppathevar
and his name got included wrongly as joint pattadars in 389/1C3, 389/1C4 and this led to the said Karuppathevar had a deed of partition on
12.04.2006 and the sale deed, dated 12.04.2006 and after he died, the said Murugan become the owner and further division of the property
made in favour of wife of Mookathevar and Murugan, son of Mookathevar are the defendants in the suit. One P. Selvaraj, s/o. Paramathevar had
executed a sale deed in favour of the Murugan and thus, the Murugan the first defendant came to title over the property.
The third respondent filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10462 of 2008 and in that writ petition this Court directed the
second respondent to consider his representation for sub dividing and to grant patta. Though this Court did not express any opinion, the second
respondent without even notice to the petitioners has made the sub division of the properties.
It is claimed that the ownership claimed by the third respondent to the land in question was spurious and the very parent document under which
he derived title itself was the subject matter of the suit.
In any event, the petitioners have not explained as to why they have not challenged the impugned order before the appellate authority
constituted under the Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. Merely stating that the ends of justice will be met only by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court,
the petitioner cannot get over the appellate and revisional jurisdiction conferred on the authorities under the Act. Further, on their own making a
civil suit has already pending against the defendants who had inherited the title from Late. Karuppathevar. From those legal heirs, the present third
respondent acquired title.
Without expressing any opinion, this Court is of the view that the petitioners must approach the appellate authority under the Patta Pass Book
Act challenging the sub division of the properties made failing which a further revision to revisional authority. In the absence of exercising the right
conferred under the Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.
However, if the petitioners file any appeal, the time taken before this Court will stand excluded as per the provisions of the Limitation Act. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.