BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14/11/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.838 of 2011 1.Murshetha Parveen 2.Shieka Vazira ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Tahsildar, Bodinaiakanoor, Theni District. 3.S.Sannasi ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order RTR No.291 of 2009 dated 27-04-2009 passed by the second Respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first Respondent to conclude the action initiated on the Petitioner's representation dated 26-12-2007. !For Petitioner ... Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth for Mr.G.R.Swaminathan ^For 3rd Respondent ... Mr.K.Annadurai For Respondents 1 and 2 ... Mr.K.Mahesh Raja Government Advocate. :ORDER
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.
2.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.
3.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.
4.The petitioners aggrieved by the sub division of the property and giving
patta to totally to a stranger, has filed the present writ petition.
5.When the matter came up on 22.01.2011, this Court ordered notice of
6.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.
7.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.
8.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 have made the sub division of the
9.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.
10.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
11.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.
12.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.
1.The District Collector,