O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.17377/2015/A3, dated 16.10.2017 passed by the first respondent and for consequential relief.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject property in S.No.516/2, measuring an extent of 82 cents, originally belongs to one Manicka Chetty, and he settled the property in favour of his daughter one Kanakambarammal, by way of a registered Settlement Deed dated 25.11.1938. Subsequently, the petitioners' father one Kuppu Reddy purchased 72 cents out of 82 cents in the subject property under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.08.1981, vide Doc.No.1387 of 1981. Since then, the petitioners and their father are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. During the lifetime of the petitioners' father, 72 cents were orally and amicably divided equally between the petitioners herein and they also obtained Patta in Patta Nos.210 and 260. While so, respondents 4 and 5 herein have purchased an extent of 4 ½ cents, each, out of the remaining 10 cents in the subject property from the said Kanakambarammal vide registered Doc.Nos.100/1995 and 101/1995. The remaining extent 1 cent could continue in the name of Kanakambarammal as common passage. Thereafter, respondents 4 and 5 filed an application seeking for issuance of separate Patta for the extent 4 ½ cents each in their favour. In that process it had came to the light that by inadvertence the remaining extent of 10 cents was also included in the Pattas, which were issued in favour of the petitioners herein in the Natham Updating Scheme in 1987. Hence, respondents 4 and 5 approached the second respondent and sought for necessary corrections in the Revenue Records and issue separate patta in their favour for the extent of 4 ½ cents each. However, the first respondent, without proper enquiry passed the impugned order by cancelling the entire Patta stood in the name of the petitioners and to revert the entire extent of 82 cents in S.No.516/2, in the name of Kanakambarammal. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that respondents 4 and 5 have purchased 4 ½ cents each out of 10 cents in S.No.516/2 from one Kanakambarammal by way of a registered sale deed. Originally, the petitioners' father purchased 72 cents in S.No.516/2, however, the petitioners, suppressed the facts and obtained Patta for the entire extent of 82 cents. While so, respondents 4 and 5 made an application sought for cancelling the Patta issued in favour of the petitioners and make necessary corrections in the Revenue Records and also sought for issuance of separate Patta in their favour in respect of their entitlement. The first respondent without proper enquiry cancelled the Patta for the entire extent of 82 cents and restore in the name of the previous owner, instead of cancelling Patta to an extent of 10 cents, and issue separate Patta for the entitlement of respondents 4 and 5.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that respondents 4 and 5 have made an application to the third respondent stating that Patta to the entire extent of 82 cents of land in S.No.516/2 was granted in favour of the petitioners during UDR scheme, though the petitioners' father purchased only an extent 72 cents alone. Thereafter, the third respondent after obtaining necessary report from Revenue Inspector, Arani and after proper enquiry, sent a detailed report to the first respondent recommending to restore as it was prior to UDR scheme. It is submitted that entire extent of 82 cents have been in possession of one Kanakambarammal, prior to UDR scheme in respect of the subject land. During the enquiry, the petitioners themselves admitted that though their father purchased only 72 cents in the subject land, however, the Government had granted patta for the entire extent of 82 cents, but the petitioners did not submit the sale