IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:2.9.2008
CORAM;
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI
W.P.NO.32485 OF 2005
and
W.P.M.P.No.35435 of 2005
1.M.Aysha Beevi
2.K.Moulana
3.Haji M.A.Habeeb Rahman ..Petitioners
vs
1.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner for Land Administration
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
2.The District Revenue Officer
Pudukkottai
3.The Tahsildar
Kulathur, Pudukkottai
4.A.Velankanni
s/o Arokiyo Udayar
Viralimalai
Pudukottai District ..Respondents
R4 impleaded as per order
dated 16.4.2007 by CVJ
in WPMP 792/07 in
WP 32485/05
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent's proceeding made in Na.Ka.No.K3/18640/2005 dated 25.8.2005 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to conduct the enquiry affording an opportunity to the petitioners and grant joint patta in favour of the petitioners with respect to the lands comprised in Survey Nos.13/2, 2/9, 10/3, 19/1A, 19/1B, 19/1C, 14, 11, 15 and 3/3 of Suriyur village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai Distrit over an extent of 16.71.5 hectares.
for petitioners : Mr.M.Muthappan
for respondents : Mr.Edwin Prabhakar
Additional Government Pleader
(for R1 to R3)
Mr.P.Seshubalan Raja
(for R4)
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By consent the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. Some of the facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: It appears that the petitioners especially the first petitioner filed an application earlier before the Tahsildar for grant of patta in the year 1989 in respect of the land comprised in Survey Nos.13/2, 2/9, 10/3, 19/1A, 19/1B, 19/1C, 14, 11, 15 and 3/3 of Suriyur Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pattukottai District for an extent of 16.71.5 hectares. The 4th respondent who claims to be in possession under sale agreement from the predecessors-in-title appears to have filed an objection before the Tahsildar at that time and after hearing both parties, the Tahsildar has rejected the claim of the petitioners on 15.5.1989. It appears that as against the said order of the Tahsildar dated 15.5.1989 the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer which stood allowed on 29.6.1990 thereby granted patta in favour of the petitioners. On a revision filed by the 4th respondent, the District Revenue Officer, the second respondent by order dated 17.9.1990 has set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 29.6.1990 reverting back to the earlier order of the Tahsildar rejecting the claim of the petitioners. It is the case of the respondents that as against the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 17.9.1990 no further appeal has been preferred and the same has become final. Without disclosing the said final orders, it appears that the petitioners in 2003 filed another application before the Tahsildar, the third respondent for issuance of patta. That application came to be dismissed by the Tahsildar on 1.7.2003 by taking note of the earlier proceedings stated above, however, directed the petitioners to approach the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration for redressal of her grievance since the earlier order of the District Revenue Officer dated 17.9.1990 can only be agitated before the Commissioner by way of appeal. In spite of such direction given by the Tahsildar on 1.7.2003 without disclosing the order of the Tahsildar it appears that the petitioners have filed an application before the first respondent on 1.12.2003. The first respondent-Commissioner has rejected the application on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.57/95 has been dismissed for the purpose of issuance of patta on 24.2.1997. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the Civil Court to get suitable relief.
4. On the basis of the facts which are narrated above, which are not in dispute, there is absolutely no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners have approached the authorities frequently without disclosing the earlier orders. Therefore, in normal circumstances, they would not be entitled for any relief in this Court. Further a reading of the order of the Tahsildar dated 1.7.2003 makes it clear that the Tahsildar has in fact directed the petitioners to approach the first respondent by way of filing revision. Even though the representation of the petitioner dated 1.12.2003 made to the first respondent was not on the basis of the direction given by the Tahsildar on 1.7.2003, it remains the fact that the petitioner has in fact approached the Special Commissioner. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration without referring to the various events which have been narrated above has simply rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. It is seen that the suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, it is the duty on the part of the first respondent while deciding about the rights of the parties, to decide about the issuance of patta, to act as per the necessary rules and not to be swayed by the dismissal of the suit.
5. In view of the same, the impugned order of the first respondent is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the first respondent to take up the application filed by the petitioner dated 1.12.2003 and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to the parties concerned, on merits and in accordance with law and taking note of the various facts stated above, expeditiously, in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
6. No costs. WPMP No.35435/2005 is disposed of.
sal
To
1.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner for Land Administration
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
2.The District Revenue Officer
Pudukkottai
3.The Tahsildar
Kulathur,
Pudukkottai