The court upheld the authority of revenue authorities to restore Patta in the name of the original owner based on the absence of evidence to establish rights over the property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in M4/31403/2014 dated 11.02.2016 confirming the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.AA3/3592/2014 dated 17.09.2014 and quash the same.)

1. The writ petitioner has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent herein on 17.09.2014 under which the name of the writ petitioner was deleted from the joint Patta and the Patta was restored in the name of one Yakobu.

2. The petitioner had contended that Survey No.24/15 in Kothanaloor Village, Kalkulam Taluk originally belonged to his grand father late. Yakobu in Patta No.4326. During the settlement proceedings, Patta was issued in his name. Thereafter, the Patta was transferred in the name of the writ petitioner. The petitioner had further contended that he had executed a settlement deed on 20.08.2013, settling two cents and 500 square links of land out of 3 ares in favour of his son John Dinesh as per his right under Patta No.4326. Hence, according to the petitioner, the entire 3 ares of land is in his possession and the possession of his son John Dinesh.

3. The petitioner had further contended that one Githionraj had addressed a complaint to the Tahsildar relating to Survey No.24/14. In the said complaint, he has not claimed any right over the disputed survey number 24/15. The second respondent after conducting an enquiry, by his order dated 17.09.2014, deleted the name of the petitioner and his son from Patta No. 4326. The petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent herein and the first respondent by his order dated 11.02.2016 confirmed the order passed by the second respondent herein. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. According to the petitioner, the complaint made by the third respondent herein in only relating to Survey No.24/14 and the third respondent had never made any complaint with regard to the disputed survey number namely 24/15. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had inherited 3 ares of land from his grandfather Yakobu and has transferred 2.500 cents of land to his son and only on the basis of the said settlement, his son name was also included in the Patta.

5. The learned counsel had further contended that the third respondent has not produced any document to the effect that he has got any right for Survey No.24/15 and in the said circumstances, the authorities ought not to have directed the writ petitioner to approach the Civil Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the third respondent has contended that the original owner of the property is one Yakobu. The said Yakobu died leaving behind his four children namely Dhasan, Aron, Gnanavadivu and Natchathiram. The writ petitioner has one more brother by name Wilson. The third respondent is none other than the son of Dhasan. According to the third respondent, the entire survey number is being utilised as a graveyard of family for number of years and more than 50 bodies have been buried in the said graveyard. The entire disputed survey number is the grave garden of Yakobu's family. The petitioner is attempting to knock away with the property by just introducing his name in the Patta along with Yakobu. Hence, he contended that the revenue authorities were right in deleting the name of the writ petitioner and restoring the Patta in the name of the original owner Yakobu. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. The petitioner had claimed right over Survey No.24/15 on the basis of inclusion of his name in Patta No.4326 along with his grandfather's nameYakobu. The petitioner has also relied upon a settlement deed said to have been executed by him in favour of his son John Dinesh on 20.08.2013 to claim