BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08/12/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.(MD)No.7494 of 2009 and M.P.No.2 of 2009 P.K.Subramanian .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, R.D.O.Office, Palani, Dindigul District. 2.The Tahsildhar, Tahsildhar Office, Ottanchathiram, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District. 3.The Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ottanchathiram, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District. 4.Veluchamy 5.Naresh 6.M.Renganayagi .. Respondents. PRAYER Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the 2nd respondent's proceedings made in Na.Ka.No.553/2009/Aa2, dated 22.7.2009, quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the Patta Transfer appeal proceedings in C.P.No.27 of 2006, in the petitioner's presence, within a stipulated period, as may be fixed by the Hon'ble Court. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Sundar ^For Respondents... Mr.D.Gandhi Raj (R1 to R3) Government Advocate Mr.A.Natarajan (Senior counsel) (R4 & R5) :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsels
appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has stated that the properties situated, in
S.F.Nos.171/3, 171/4, 69/1, 69/9A and 69/9B in Veeralapatti Village,
Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District, belongs to the 4th and the 6th
respondents. The sixth respondent’s husband, namely, Murugesan, had filed a suit
in O.S.No.229 of 1975, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani, as
against the 4th respondent, his father Ellappa Naicker and his mother,
Muthammal, praying for the relief of partition.
3. During the pendency of the said suit, a compromise had been recorded,
amongst the parties and it was passed as a decree, in I.A.No.1358 of 1980, on
23.7.1980. Since the husband of the sixth respondent was not satisfied with the
compromise, he had filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Dindigul, in A.S.No.124
of 1980, in which the said compromise had been set aside and the matter was
remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Since there was no
representation on behalf of the plaintiffs, the suit was dismissed for default,
on 13.2.1995. Thereafter, no action was initiated to restore the said suit.
4. In the meantime, Murugesan, had executed a settlement deed, on
4.9.2003, in favour of the sixth respondent, with regard to his portions alone.
The said settlement deed was acted upon and the sixth respondent had got his
share by virtue of the settlement deed. Thereafter, the sixth respondent had
applied for patta, with regard to her portions, before the third respondent. All
the parties concerned were called for an enquiry and thereafter, the third
respondent was pleased to dismiss the patta transfer application.
5. It has been further stated that the sixth respondent had preferred an
appeal before the first respondent, in C.P.No.27 of 2006, and it is still
pending on his file. In such circumstances, the petitioner had purchased the
said property, from the sixth respondent, on 5.8.2008, by virtue of a sale deed,
dated 5.8.2008. The sale deed had been registered in the District Registrar’s
Office, Palani, as Document No.2444 of 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner has been
in possession and enjoyment of the said property, without any interruption.
6. While so, the fourth and the fifth respondents have filed separate
proceedings before the second respondent. Accordingly, they had prayed for the
quashing of the proceedings, made in R.T.R.No.1082 of 2008, on the file of the
third respondent. A notice had been issued to all the parties concerned, for the
holding of an enquiry. Inspite of the fact that the petitioner is the owner of
the property in question the second respondent had started to proceed with the
enquiry, contrary to the provisions of the Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. The
representations made by the petitioner have not been considered by the second
respondent. However, the second respondent had passed the impugned proceedings,
on 22.7.2009, cancelling the patta granted in the name of the petitioner, in
respect of the properties in question. In such circumstances, the petitioner has
preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the
proceedings of the second respondent, dated 22.7.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and
void. The second respondent had failed to note that, as per the provisions of
the Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, only an appeal should have been preferred,
against the order of the Tahsildar, before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The
second respondent had proceeded with the enquiry, without giving an opportunity
to the petitioner, to put forth his case. Therefore, the proceedings of the
second respondent is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Since the
same issue is pending before the first respondent, the second respondent ought
not to have decided the issue. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings
of the second respondent, dated 22.7.2009, is liable to be set aside.
8. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, and in view
of the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties concerned and
on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that
the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to
interfere with the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated
22.7.2009. Even though various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, he has
not been in a position to substantiate his claims.
9. Even though the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is
that the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 22.7.2009,
without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, this Court is of the
considered view that an appeal remedy is available to the petitioner under
Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983.
10. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 22.7.2009. However, it
is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy,
provided under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. As
such the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be
dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. In view of the dismissal of the
writ petition, on the basis of the existence of the availability of an
alternative remedy to the petitioner, this Court has not chosen to express its
opinion, on the merits of the matter. It would be open to the petitioner to
raise all the grounds available to the petitioner, before the authority
concerned, while availing the alternative remedy, in the manner known to law. No
costs. Consequently, connected M.P is closed.
csh
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
R.D.O.Office,
Palani, Dindigul District.
2.The Tahsildhar,
Tahsildhar Office,
Ottanchathiram,
Ottanchathiram Taluk,
Dindigul District.
3.The Deputy Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Ottanchathiram,
Ottanchathiram Taluk,
Dindigul District.