The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for parties to produce registered documents to establish ownership and the reliance on settlement registers and UDR proceedings to determine ownership and possession.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings in Pa.Mu.(Pi 5) 143/2013, dated 12.02.2016, signed on 22.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal.)

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the first respondent herein, under which, the names of the private respondents were also included and a joint patta was issued.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the power agent of the petitioners herein, who are the legal heirs of one Chairman Nadar. The said Chairman Nadar was the absolute owner of the lands in Survey Nos.167/2, 168/2, 169, 171/1, 171/3, 181/1 and 182/2, approximately for an extent of 53.5 acres in Kannirajapuram Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

3. According to the petitioner, a separate patta in the name of Chairman Nadar for Survey Nos.181/1 and 181/2 was issued. For other survey numbers, a joint patta was issued in favour of Chairman Nadar along with seventeen other persons. After the death of said Chairman Nadar, the writ petitioners became the owner of the properties. In the year 2009, the petitioners gave a representation to the Tahsildar for sub division and issuance of separate patta. Based upon the said request, separate patta was issued in the name of the writ petitioners in patta No.546.

4. The petitioner has further contended that the private respondents are strangers to the above said land and they are making a claim to the disputed survey numbers, based upon a final decree passed in O.S.No.21 of 1964. Based upon the said final decree, they made a request to the Tahsildar Kadaladi. The Tahsildar, Kadaladi, without issuing notice to the permanent address of the petitioners at Pondicherry, had allowed the petition and incorporated the name of the private respondents along with the writ petitioners and issued a joint patta in patta No.782.

5. The order of the Tahsildar was challenged by the petitioners before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by his order, dated 18.11.2013, passed a detailed order, allowing the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. In the said order, the Revenue Divisional Order has recorded that the final decree in O.S.No.21 of 1964 is no way connected with the disputed survey numbers. By allowing the appeal, the separate patta in the name of the writ petitioners was restored.

6. The petitioner has further submitted that the private respondents had filed a revision before the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram. The Revisional Authority after conducting an enquiry, restored the order of Tahsildar, under which, a joint patta was granted. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had contended that the final decree proceedings relied upon by the private respondents in I.A.No.420 of 1988 in O.S.No.21 of 1964, dated 04.05.1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram, does not reflect any survey number and hence, the said final decree cannot be relied upon by the Revenue Authorities for grant of patta in favour of the private respondents.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had further contended that apart from the final decree proceedings, the respondents have not relied upon any document to establish their title or possession over the disputed property. Once, a separate patta was issued in the name of the writ petitioners by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the respondents ought to have approach the civil Court for declaration of their title and possession. The Revisional Authority ought not to have interfered in the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the Revisional Authority has arrived at an erroneous finding that the petitioners have not objected to the