ORDER

This petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.833/2018/A dated 31.08.2018, insofar as it relates to directing the 3rd respondent to effect mutation of patta in favour of the writ petitioner, based on the outcome of the criminal proceedings and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary.

2. The one-liner of this case according to the petitioner is that a certain Muneeswaran has challenged the title of the petitioner over a plot of land on the strength of a fraudulent fabricated sale deed, and obtained patta in his name.

She moved the second respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter RDO) to restore her name in the revenue records, but that was rejected Vide the impugned order.

3. The facts as could be gathered on a combined reading of the affidavit herein filed along with the materials in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner are:

● Petitioner claims title over a plot of 2,100 sq.ft. in S.No:693/2 of Pallikaranai Village. It originally belonged to a certain Purushotaman. According to the petitioner, Purushotaman sold it to one Sivakumar, who in turn sold it to the the petitioner under a sale deed dated 06-07-2006. While so, a certain Muneeswaran, arrayed as 4th respondent herein, aided by another person, who impersonated himself as Purushotaman, had fabricated false documents, and brought into existence a fraudulent sale deed on 21-08-2006, as if Purushothaman had sold the property to Muneeswaran.

● The petitioner, on coming to know of this mischief, made a complaint to the police, based on which an FIR was registered in Crime No:163/2015 against Muneeswaran. She also required the Registration authority to cancel the registration of the aforesaid fraudulent sale, for which purpose she obtained an order of this Court to consider her representation pen- ding before the said authority, in W.P.43033 of 2016. The registering authority however, directed the petitioner to approach the civil court for remedy.

● Consequent to this, the petitioner instituted O.S.207/2018 before the Principal District Court, Alandur, arraying both Purushothaman, the ori- ginal owner and Muneeswaran respectively as first and second defendants, for a declaration that the sale deed dated 21-08-2006 that stands in the name of 2nd defendant Muneeswaran was a fraudulent sale deed. In that suit, Muneeswaran stayed ex parte.

● Thereafter, a compromise memo, dated 02-04-2019 came to be filed before the District Munsiff Court, requiring the Court to decree the suit. Interestingly, if not curiously, in paragraph 6 thereof (which is seen inserted by hand), it is mentioned that the non-participating Muneeswa- ran had lent his consent to the compromise as if he had agreed that the sale deed dated 21-08-2006 that stands in his name was fraudulent and void. And, Muneeswaran had not signed the compromise.

● It does not stop there. The trial Court would thereafter refer the matter to the Lok Adalat, wherein both the petitioner and Purushothaman had ap- peared. On 21-05-2019 an award came to be passed by the Lok Adalat which reads: 'B o th sides present, and the suit is decreed as prayed for.'

● In the meantime, the petitioner had moved the RDO, the second respon-

dent, for transfer of patta in her name, and lost the prayer Vide his pro- ceedings dated 31-08-2018. The RDO in his proceedings had directed the petitioner to approach the civil court for remedy. (It is not evident whe- ther O.S.207 of 2018 was instituted before or after the aforesaid procee-

dings of the RDO, but there is no reference to the same in the plaint).

It is this proceedings of the RDO, dated 31-08-2018, which the petitioner challenges in this petition.

4. Heard both sides. This Court is not entirely satisfied with the method adopted by the petitioner for manoeuvering her strategy through the procedure to have her title over the plot of land secured. It may be tha