Disputes regarding land ownership must be resolved through proper inquiry, respecting existing legal titles and vested interests, rather than solely relying on civil court decrees.

JUDGMENT :

G.JAYACHANDRAN, R.POORNIMA , JJ.

The intra Court appeal is preferred by the State on being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.11003 of 2022, dated 24.06.2022.

2.The Writ Petitioner viz., Mr. Sivakumar in his petition had contended that the property in survey number 54/1 to an extent of 3 acres 88 cents, situated at Paruthikanmai Village, Kalyaiyarkovil Taluk, Sivaganga District, belongs to his maternal great grandfather viz., Mr Karuppaiah Pillai. In the Settlement Land Register(SLR), the said Karuppaiah Pillai name is shown as the cultivator of the land. Despite that by wrong classification of the property of the land as Bhoothan land, the Revenue Authorities are not issuing patta to him, inspite of submitting documentary evidences such as SLR entry, kist receipts and adangal, besides, the Civil Court decree declaring the title over the property in favour of descendants of Karuppaiah Pillai and the preliminary decree in favour of his mother in the partition suit .

3.The case of the writ petitioner is that his mother had executed a Will dated 09.12.2019 in his favour and died on 05.06.2021. While so, he being the lawful owner of the property and having valid title, is entitled to get patta for the land and the same cannot be denied for irrelevant reasons. The writ petitioner had stated that against the decree of declaration of title passed in O.S.No.174 of 2007 by the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, the state has not filed any appeal. That was followed by the preliminary decree in the partition suit between his mother and maternal Uncle. In the partition suit, his mother succeeded in her claim of half share in the property. In the partition suit, after the preliminary decree dated 06.03.2016, she executed a Will dated 09.12.2019 and died before passing of final decree. However, by virtue of her Will dated 09.12.2019, he was entitled to get Patta. The petitioner's representations for grant of patta, based on the Civil Court's decree and his mother's Will, to be considered in accordance with law. Hence, issuance of Mandamus sought.

4.The State had come with the fact that by virtue of gift deed by Soosai Manikam Pillai in favour of Bhoomidhana Board, the property in survey number is vested with Bhoodhan Board and necessary mutation of revenue records been carried out four decades ago. The writ petitioner or his mother have no title over the property and the survey number and boundaries shown in the Civil Court decree does not tally with the land gifted to Bhoodhan Board by Soosai Manikam Pillai .

5.The portion of the Civil Court judgement relied by the writ petitioner is as under:-

“10.In this case the certified copy of the gift deed executed by Soosaimanickampillai in favour of the Boomidhana Board was filed as Ex.A2. A perusal of the said document which is dated 30.12.1953 goes to show that one Soosai Manickam Pillai of Paruthi Kanmoi Village in Sivagangai Taluk, Ramnad District had executed gift in favour of Boomidhana Board in respect of property situated in Iyurulithatchan Kanmoi Village of Sivagangai Taluk, Ramnad District to the extent of 6 acres 60 cents. Thus, the mere perusal of the said documents goes to show that the said Soosai Manickam Pillai had executed gift deed in favour of Boomidhana Board only in respect of property situated in Iyurulithatchan Kanmoi Village and not the property situated in Paruthi Kanmoi Village as claimed by the defendants.

11.Further a perusal of Exs.C1 and C2 clearly goes to show that the four boundaries found in Ex.A.2 is not at all tallying with the four boundaries found in the field. The V.A.O who deposed on behalf of the Government has also categorically admitted that during the commission proceeding the boundaries as found in the gift deed could not be correlated.”

6.The learned single judge after hearing the counsels on either side, has passed the following order. The said order is impugned in the Writ Appeal filed by the State.

“The pet