The rejection of a patta application by a quasi-judicial authority is perverse when it disregards credible evidence and established legal procedures, warranting the intervention of higher courts.

ORDER :

1. The writ petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent dated 21.03.2022 and the consequential order of the fifth respondent dated 10.04.2022 and consequently seeks issuance of patta in his favour on the basis of the report of the fourth respondent dated 29.07.2020.

2. Heard Mr. P.R. Prithiviraj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. C. Satheesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, Mr. K.S. Nagakumaran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 8 and Mr. N.S. Karthikeyan, learned Counsel appearing for the seventh respondent.

3. The petitioner claims to be grandson of one Narasupillai, who was owning vast extent of lands in Guntoor Village, Tiruverumbur Taluk, Trichy District. The said Narasupillai, died leaving behind his wife Kumudavalli and his sons T.N. Srinivasan, T.N. Sankaran, T.N. Suriyanarayanan, T.N. Ramakrishnan and T.N. Gopalakrishnan, as his surviving legal heirs. The writ petitioner is son of the above mentioned T.N. Suriyanarayanan. According to the petitioner, in and by registered partition deed dated 27.12.1967, in Document No.63 of 1968, the petitioner's father T.N. Suriyanarayanan was allotted various items of property measuring total extent of 30 acres, which included an extent of 39 cents in S.No.128/A in Guntoor Village, Tiruverumbur Taluk, Trichy District.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that his father died on 19.05.2014, leaving behind his wife Kalyani and sons M.S. Loganatha Babu, M.S. Prabhu [writ petitioner] and M.S. Sridhar, as his only Class-I legal heirs. The petitioner along with his mother and brothers claim to be in absolute possession and enjoyment of the lands in S.No.128/1A, without any interference from any quarter. However, the petitioner came to know that the name of the sixth respondent was wrongly entered in the 'A' register and chitta. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 01.08.2018, to rectify the error. The representation came to be forwarded to the fifth respondent. As no action was taken by the fifth respondent, the petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No.1104 of 2019, before this Court and by order dated 05.09.1996, this Court directed the third respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application within a period of eight [8] weeks.

5. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the third respondent conducted enquiry and the Taluk Inspector, Thiruverumbur Taluk also filed his report dated 30.01.2020, pointing out an alteration of name Shanmugam son of Rengaraj in the place of Shanmugam son of Karuppaiya. The Village Administrative Officer, Guntoor, also filed a report on 29.06.2020, on similar lines. Thereafter, the fourth respondent conducted a detailed enquiry, where the sixth respondent claim that he has purchased the subject property even in the year 1983 and however, he could not be able to substantiate the same by producing any registered sale deed as claimed by him. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the fourth respondent has filed a report recommending patta to be granted in the petitioner favour.

6. Subsequent to the receipt of the report from the fourth respondent, the third respondent conducted an enquiry and by proceedings dated 23.08.2021, the case was transferred to the second respondent, citing that the matter pertains to UDR issue. However, the second respondent directed the fourth respondent to measure the property in S.No.62/5G, which according to the petitioner was totally irrelevant to the facts of the present case, since the dispute was only pertain