The central legal point established in the judgment is that authorities must exercise their statutory powers in a proper manner, appreciate relevant revenue entries, and adhere to principles of natural justice when making decisions under the Patta Passbook Act.

R. Banumathi, J. & T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.08.2002 in W.P.No.11979 of 1993.

2. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 31.12.1992, as confirmed by the third respondent by dated 20.03.1993, and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to include the name of the appellant in the Joint patta bearing No.683 in respect of survey No.134/1, Nochiyurani village, Ramanathapuram Taluk and District.

3. The case of the appellant is that during the Samasdhanam period, the appellant's father Chinna Munikaruppan was granted patta in respect of Paimash No.105 of Nochiyurani village, Ramanathapuram Taluk, measuring an extent of about 5.40 acres. In the settlement proceedings conducting during 1964, the lands in paimash No.105, 91 & 92 were clubbed together and survey No.134 was assigned and the total extent is said to be 6.67.0 hects., and a joint patta No.75, dated 12.09.1964 was issued in the name of 10 persons including the father of the appellant. It is further submitted that during 1987, Joint patta No.223, was issued including the name of the appellant. During 1989, the appellant submitted an application for sub-division of the property and issuance of separate patta in her name. The fourth respondent, who was a co-pattadhar submitted his objections and based on which the Tahsildhar conducted enquiry after inspecting the land and confirmed the Joint patta including the name of the appellant. Aggrieved by such order, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal to the second respondent, who by proceedings dated 25.02.1991, dismissed the appeal. The fourth respondent filed a revision before the third respondent, who allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the second respondent with certain directions. On such remand, the second respondent by order dated 31.12.1992, directed the deletion of paimash No.105 and inclusion of paimash Nos.90, 91 & 92. Against such order passed by the second respondent, the appellant preferred appeal to the third respondent, which was dismissed by order dated 20.03.1993. Challenging the order dated 20.03.1992, passed by the third respondent confirming the order passed by the second respondent dated 31.12.1992, the writ petition was filed.

4. The official respondents and the fourth respondent filed counter affidavit resisting the claim of the appellant.

5. The writ Court after considering the rival contentions took note of the statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent that the S.L.R., copy was not produced either before the second respondent or the third respondent and on the other hand, the fourth respondent has produced Patta Passbook issued in his name and in the light of the overwhelming material, the writ Court confirmed the factual findings recorded by the respondents 2 & 3 and dismissed the writ petition by order dated 09.08.2002. Challenging the said order, this appeal has been filed.

6. We have heard Mr.S.Anbarasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.P.S.Shiva Shanmughasundaram learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.R.T.Doraisamy learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent and carefully perused the materials placed on record.

7. In the writ petition, the third respondent had filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. The official respondents sought to justify their order by referring to an inspection conducting by the second respondent on 31.12.1992, in which it is stated that the contentions raised by the appellant, were not proved. Further, it is stated that the fourth respondent has produced documents and during the inspection of the property, it was found that paimash Nos.90, 91 & 92 alone correlate to survey No.134 and paimash No.105 has been wrongly included in survey No.134. Further, in the counter affidavit the of