AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the second respondent, dated
23.02.2009 and to direct the respondents to grant patta in the name of Mr. Kanagaraja.
The present writ petition has been filed by one S. Assai Alangaram claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the said Kanagaraj who is the
resident of Malaysia. The case of the petitioner is that agricultural land comprised in No. 13, Nadumandalam Village, Natham Taluk in Patta No.
343 absolutely belongs to one Mr. Karuppiah, S/o. Karuppan Kangani. The said Karuppiah settled in Malaysia after having handed over
possession of all the agricultural lands to the petitioner, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property from 1990 onwards and the
patta No. 343 has been issued. During 1995, the said Karuppiah died and his only son Kanagaraja, became the owner of the property and he had
executed general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner on 29.05.2002 to take care of the agricultural lands in Patta No. 343. The petitioner
came to know that the name of Karuppiah was deleted in patta No. 343 and the name of the fourth respondent was inserted as per the order in
RTR 370/94-95 dated 10.05.1994 without issuing any notice. After obtaining a certified copy of the said patta, the petitioner submitted a
representation to enquire into the illegality in such a transfer of patta. The third respondent by proceedings dated 03.04.2003 recommended to
remove the name of the fourth respondent. The petitioner submitted a representation under the Right to Information Act on 22.01.2009 since
nearly six years, no further action was taken pursuant to the order dated 03.04.2003. After his request was under the Right to Information Act, the
second respondent passed the impugned order.
The petitioner contends that the impugned order is erroneous and the proceedings in RTR 370/94-95 dated 10.05.1994 does not relate to patta
No. 343. The petitioner further contended that the principal who is in Malaysia had issued the power of attorney. The petitioner also relied upon
the enquiry report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer wherein the petitioner possession has been admitted. The petitioner would also
contend that the second respondent having admitted that departmental proceedings were directed to be initiated as to how such an entry was made
and kept pending, ought to have passed the impugned order.
The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner has to file
an appeal. The second respondent would further contend that the third respondent has recommended for deletion of the name of Mr. Subbiah in
Patta No. 343 and registering the name of Mr. Karuppiah in his report dated 03.04.2003. But the report of the Tahsildar, was not considered in
the absence of records showing that the lands belong to Mr. Karuppiah. Inasmuch as the land is under the occupation and enjoyment of Mr.
Subbiah, it has been ordered to verify the correctness of the changes already made in this chitta by verifying the records prior to UDR scheme. The
third respondent has been instructed to entrust this work to one Deputy Tahsildar and send a detail report to the second respondent. The second
respondent would further contend that though the RTR number noted in Patta No. 343 are not relevant, orders cannot be issued without verifying
all the records and also giving sufficient opportunities to the existing pattadar Mr. Subbiah, the fourth respondent herein. The second respondent
would further contend that an enquiry was also ordered to be conducted with regard to the alteration made in Patta No. 343, Nadumandalam
village and only after completion of such enquiry, the fact regarding the actual owner of the land will come to light.
The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit along with the vacate stay petition contending that the power of attorney document is not admissible
and the petitioner cannot initiate any proceedings. The fourth respondent would further contend that the reference in RTR No. 370/94-95, dated
10.05.1994 does not pertain to Patta No. 343 but pertains to different patta No. 873 but alleged that the petitioner using his influence had
managed to strike off his name in the revenue records. The fourth respondent has made certain factual allegations regarding the inheritance and
ownership rights. Further, the fourth respondent would submit that the petitioner has not established his claim that the property stood in the name of
Karuppiah at any earlier prior to 1994 or thereafter till 2003.
Heard Mr. M.S. Sureshkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pala. Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. B. Jameel Arasu, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
To resolve the controversy involved in the writ petition, it would not be necessary to dwell deep into the factual allegations by the petitioner, the
second and the fourth respondents. It is to be noted that originally, the patta No. 343 stood in the name of Karuppiah, S/o. Karuppan Kangani in
the patta, the said name has been rounded off and substituted by Subbiah S/o. Azhagan besides such entry the proceedings Number has been
referred to RTR No. 370/94-95, dated 10.05.1994. Therefore, it is to be noted that such correction in the patta is based on the said proceedings.
It is an admitted case that the said proceedings does not relate to patta No. 343. In fact, the Tahsildar by proceedings dated 12.07.1994 has
clearly stated that the said proceedings relate to different survey number and has got no relation to the patta No. 323. This fact has already been
admitted in the impugned order at page-6 wherein, the second respondent has clearly stated that the said proceedings does not relate to Patta No.
Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot have a grievance with regard to his proceedings. This finding has not been questioned by the fourth
respondent.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is aggrieved by the observation at paragraph 4 at page 6 of the impugned order which
says that until deciding the fact of the report, the patta will continue to stand in the name of the fourth respondent. In my view, the finding in
paragraph 4 of the impugned order is not tenable. The authority after having held that the proceedings in RTR 370/94-95 dated 10.05.1994 does
not relate to Patta No. 343, it is their bounden duty to establish as to, on what basis, and based on which order, such an entry was made in favour
of the fourth respondent. As long as such an order is not produced, the change of name in favour of the fourth respondent is to be treated as illegal.
The second respondent having categorically held that this proceeding does not relate to a particular patta ought to have restored the original
position by mentioning the name of the Karuppiah S/o. Karuppan Kangani and cannot allow the patta to remain in the name of fourth respondent in
the absence of any proper document. As I have already observed that the fourth respondent has not questioned this finding or the earlier
proceedings issued by the Tahsildar to the said effect.
In that view of the matter, the impugned order, insofar as it relates to the finding in Paragraph 4 at Page-6 is set aside and the second
respondent is directed to restore the entry in the name of Karuppiah S/o. Karuppan Kangani who is said to be the father of Kanagaraja who is the
Principal of the writ petitioner. However, it is open to the Department to initiate any further action, if there are any records to establish the change
in favour of the fourth respondent, if it is being done, it shall be done only after affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the fourth
respondent.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009 are closed.