SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 1611

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Lakshmiammal & Others
Versus
The District Collector, Krishnagiri District & Others
W.P.No.22761 of 2011
Decided On: 30-03-2012

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioners:Mr. A. Rajesh Kannaa, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Advocate.

The grant of patta is governed by the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, and the competent authority to issue or cancel patta is the Tahsildar. Seeking direction against the provisions of the statute through a writ petition is not permissible.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Property Dispute - Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 - Sec. 10, 14 - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking mandamus to cancel the patta issued in favor of the respondents. The court held that the grant of patta is governed by the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, and the Tahsildar is the competent authority to issue or cancel patta. The aggrieved party has the remedy to move for cancellation under Sec.10 of the Act or file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Rule 14. The decision of the statutory authority is further subjected to revision, and parties aggrieved by the decision can file a civil suit. The District Collector is not the competent authority to deal with patta issuance or cancellation, and seeking direction against the provisions of the statute through a writ petition is not permissible.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and cancel the patta issued in favor of the respondents, alleging illegal acquisition of ancestral properties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the writ to be misconceived and a misuse of the court process, as the grant of patta is governed by the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, and the District Collector is not the competent authority to deal with patta issuance or cancellation.

Issues: Misconceived writ petition, misuse of court process, competence of the District Collector to deal with patta issuance or cancellation.

Ratio Decidendi: The grant of patta is governed by the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, and the competent authority to issue or cancel patta is the Tahsildar. Seeking direction against the provisions of the statute through a writ petition is not permissible.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit, and imposed no cost.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.02.2011 and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the patta, issued in favour of the respondents 4 to 9.

2. In support of the writ petition, it is pleaded as under:

"(1). I am the 2nd petitioner herein and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am swearing this affidavit for my behalf and on behalf of other petitioners also. The petitioners are all the legal heirs of the deceased Tirumalappa.

(2). I respectfully submit that my great grandfather Mr.Thimmaiah and his wife, Smt. Venkattamma had jointly executed a gift deed in favour of their grandsons namely, Thirumalappa and Gopalappa by appointing their son, Guruappa, my grandfather as guardian in respect of a total extent of 19.46 acres of agricultural land under document No.1154/1964 dated 16.04.1964, comprised in original survey Nos.829/A, 829/B1, 612/A3, 612/C1, 612/C2 612/C3, 824/A and 824/C2 in Bairamangalam Village and Post, Denkanikotta Taluk, Krishnagiri District. Since the date of the execution of the said gift deed, Thirumalappa and his brother Gopalappa became the absolute owners of the entire properties of the above cited items. Thirumalappa was found dead due to his illness and mental disorder and as a result of the same his family has undergone tremendous difficulties. In the meantime, Gopalappa also died, leaving all the immovable properties.

(3). I humbly submit that it was during this time that the fourth respondent had with a evil design to grab the ancestral properties belonging to them, illegally obtained UDR patta in their name during the time of resurvey made in 1984 – 1985 in respect of 6.12 acres of land comprised in original survey Nos.829/A and 829/B1 respectively measuring 2.78 and 3.34 acres out of the entire extent of 19.46 acres of land which was totally inherited by virtue of the gift deed executed by Thaimmaiah in favour of Thirumalappa and Gopalappa who were his sons.

(4). I further submit that they are having clear title and ownership to the property from 1964, the time of the execution of the gift deed and even prior to that viz., from the time when Thimmaiah purchased the entire property through valid sale deeds in 1941. The original survey Nos.829/A and 829/B1 are later on sub divided on the basis of the illegal documents created by the 4th respondent into sub divisions as Survey Nos.829/B1 A1-1.84 acres, 829/A2-0.23 acre, 829/B1, B1A-0.05 acre, 829/B1 B-0.50 acre, 829/B1 and 9.45 acre, 829/AB-0.10 acre, 829/A1A-2.12 acres, 829/B1 and B1A1-0.50.

(5). I further submit that the 4th respondent in the absence of any title or ownership in the properties in his favour had managed and manipulated to get UDR patta by illegal and foul means during the time of resurvey of land by making use of the opportunity that no responsible person was available in my family having got the UDR patta by illegal means, that the 4th respondent had illegally obtained a deed of partition among respondents 4 to 8 family members under document No.5468/1987 dated 03.11.1987, registered in the Sub Registrar Office at Hosur and on the basis and strength of the said manipulated illegal and foul document, the 4th respondent sold the said land measuring 6.12 acres along with the respondents 5 to 8 who are wife, son and daughters to and in favour of the 9th respondent who obtained illegal and unauthorised entry into the property.

(6). I further submit that the respondents 4 to 8 have no title or ownership in the properties and so they have no authority or right to convey the property and whereby the 9th respondent get no right or title over the property.

(7). I further submit that though illegally patta was obtained by the A.M. Krishna Reddy in his name and subsequently an illegal settlement deed was executed by his legal heirs they did no










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top