C O M M O N O R D E R

Since the facts projected by both sides in these writ petitions are interconnected or overlapping and the parties to all these writ petitions are one and the same, and the issue raised in these writ petitions is also one and the same, which relates to the patta issued in favour of the petitioner in W.P.Nos.30979 of 2015 and 2316 of 2016, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, all the three writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner in W.P.No.1945 of 2016 viz., Konduru Shakila would be called as Shakila and the petitioner in the other Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.30979 of 2015 and 2316 of 2016 M.Tamilarasan would be called as Tamilarasan.

3.The necessary facts which are required to be noted for the disposal of these three writ petitions are given below.

4. The agricultural property to the extent of 1.71 Acres at Kummanur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District in Survey No.17/3B is the subject matter. The said property originally belonged to two persons viz., one Dhanalakshmi and one Bharathi. The case of Shakila is that, on 23.02.2008, she purchased the property for a valid sale consideration by paying a sum of Rs.15,04,800/- by way of a bank draft and accordingly, the property was purchased through a registered sale deed.

5. Pursuant to the said purchase, the said Shakila applied for patta to the Revenue Authorities, who, after having considered the said sale, under which the said Shakila purchased the property in question, had issued Patta in Patta No.9123 of 2008 by an order dated 10.06.2008 to and in favour of the said Shakila.

6. It is further to be noted that, Tamilarasan, as he seems to have entered into a sale agreement with the original owners of the property ie., Dhanalakshmi and Bharathi, in order to seek for specific performance in respect of the very same subject property, had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.31 of 2007 before the Sub Court, Ponneri. The suit was pending between 2007 and 2008 and on 18.03.2008, the suit was decreed in favour of the said Tamilarasan. Pursuant to the said decree for specific performance, on 29.11.2011 the Court executed the sale deed, as the defendants in the suit ie., Dhanalakshmi and Bharathi did not come forward to execute the sale deed. That is how Tamilarasan also purchased the same property by way of Court executed sale deed on 29.11.2011. With the strength of the said purchase, Tamilarasan applied for patta to be issued in his name, which was also considered and the patta already issued in the name of Shakila in Patta No.9123 of 2008 dated 10.06.2008 was cancelled and the patta was issued in the name of Tamilarasan in November 2012.

7. Subsequently only, the said Shakila came to know about these developments as to why the patta granted in her favour was cancelled and why it was reissued in favour of Tamilarasan because of the Civil Court decree made in O.S.No.31 of 2007 and the subsequent Court execution of the sale deed dated 29.11.2011 and therefore, in order to declare the said decree passed by the Court in O.S.No.31 of 2007 as null and void and unexecutable, Shakila filed a suit in O.S.No.174 of 2014 before the Sub Court, Ponneri, where Tamilarasan and the original owners Dhanalakshmi and Bharathi were made as defendants.

8. It is further to be noted that, in the said suit, the plaintiff Shakila had obtained an interim order of injuction to the effect that, the subject property shall not be alienated by the defendants. When the matter stood thus, Shakila had made a request to the Revenue Officials ie., Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri Division and the Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk, by way of a representation dated 22.08.2015 for restoration of the patta in her name by cancelling the patta issued in the name of the said Tamilarasan.

9. In order to consider the said representation dated 22.08.2015 by the Revenue Officials, Shakila filed W.P.No.1945 of 2016