The court emphasized that revenue authorities must not alter land records without clear evidence of title, especially when prior claims have been dismissed.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent dated 10.02.2021.

2. I have heard Mr.A.N.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4. I have also gone through the records, including the impugned order.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the lands comprised in S.F.No.384/1 to an extent of 36 cents, Keelapaguthi Village, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District, belonged to one Varatha Reddiyar and his wife Veerammal, who have purchased the total extent of 8.57 Acres from one Jamindhar K.K.Muthaiah, by way of registered sale deed dated 16.08.1960. The said Varatha Reddiyar and his wife Veerammal, sold 2.48 Acres to one Mohamed Hanifa by way of registered sale deed dated 31.12.1960, who in turn sold the said lands to one A.Periyasamy, S/o.Andiyappa Pandithar in any by registered sale deed dated 30.01.1961. The said A.Periyasamy mutated UDR patta and other revenue records in his name. The petitioner's father's whose name, is also Periyasamy, S/o.Thirumudiyapillai, purchased 36 cents in S.F.No. 384/1 from A.Periyasamy vide sale deed dated 19.06.2003 and subsequently patta was also mutated in the name of T.Periyasamy. He executed a registered settlement deed dated 22.03.2013 in favour of the petitioners and patta was also mutated in favour of the petitioners in patta No.1924.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that there was a family partition registered in document No.1478/2018 in and by which the subject property was allotted to the share of the petitioner's father, viz., T.Periyasamy and patta was again mutated in his name. While so, the fourth respondent claimed right over S.F.No.384/1 as if it belonged to Manickam Pillai and others and that they had executed sale deed on 13.11.1978 to one A.Valusamy and A.Natesan, who in turn, by registered sale deed dated 05.02.2013 sold it in favour of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent subsequently sold the said property to the fifth respondent on 15.02.2013. On purchase, the fifth respondent has approached the first respondent to delete the name of A.Periyasamy in the UDR patta, which was issued in the year 1984 and subsequently revenue patta standing in the name of T.Periyasamy. The vendor of the fourth respondent, viz., A.Velusamy and A.Natesan, have filed a civil suit in O.S.No.482 of 2004 for declaration that they are the owners of the property and for consequential injunction against the revenue officials not to enter the petitioners' father, viz., T.Periyasamy in the revenue record. The said suit was contested, however subsequently, on 31.10.2014, the suit was dismissed for default. According to the petitioners, no steps were taken to restore the said suit and in the meanwhile, the plaintiff had died and the second defendant had also died and therefore, the decree for dismissal attained finality.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that even pending the suit, the fourth respondent approached the first respondent and sought for change in UDR patta. However, despite bringing it to the notice of the first respondent that the suit filed by the fourth respondent for declaration had been dismissed in and by the impugned order, the first respondent had deleted the name of A.Periyasamy and entered the name of the fifth respondent and this order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the fourth respondent, pending the suit for declaration of title had conveyed the property to fifth respondent and subsequently the suit came to be dismissed, the fourth respondent's title itself became questionable and unfortunately, the first respondent has failed to examine the effect of the dismissal of O.S.No.482 of 2004, while erroneously directing deletion of name of A.Periyasamy in 'A' Register, which was intact from 1984 onwards. He would further submit