IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.09.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.15750 of 2014

1. Veeramani

2. Ramesh ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Administration, St.George, Chennai – 9

2. The Revenue Divisional officer, Kallakurichi

3. The Tahsildar, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi

4. Tamil Selvan

5. R.Elangovan ... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A4/5379/2014 dated 24.02.2013 and signed on 24.02.2014 to quash the same and to issue consequential direction to the respondents to give patta in the petitioners' name.

For Petitioners : M/s.A.Malath Devapriyam For Respondents : Mr.R.Vigneswaran Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.R.Nalliappan for R4

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A4/5379/2014 dated 24.02.2013 and signed on 24.02.2014 to quash the same and to issue consequential direction to the respondents to give patta in the petitioners' name.

2. Heard Mr.Malath Devapriyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.R.Vigneswaran, learned Government Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.R.Nalliappan, learned counsel for 4^th respondent. Since no adverse order is being passed, notice to the 5^th respondent is dispensed with. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the 4^th respondent has given a petition to the 3^rd respondent, Tahsildar, Kallakurichi for change of patta from the name of the petitioners' father into his name, and the Tahsildar recommended for transfer of patta, which was in the name of the petitioners' father in the name of the 4^th respondent and the 2^nd respondent confirmed the report of the 3^rd respondent, challenging which present Writ petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the 1^st petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S.No.249 of 2013 against the 4^th respondent and the 5^th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.101 of 2013 against the petitioners and their father seeking a decree declaring title and interest for an undivided share and for permanent injunction. Both the suits were filed before the Sub Court, Kallakurichi. The suit in O.S.No.101 of 2013 was dismissed for default, whereas, the suit in O.S.No.249 of 2013 was decreed in favour of the petitioners and therefore, the act of the respondents in transferring the patta without referring to the decree in favour of the petitioners is wholly impermissible.

5. In reply, the learned Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent submit that this Court may remand the matter to the 2^nd respondent to pass appropriate orders.

6. In view of the fair submission made on the side of the respondents, this Court permits the petitioners to file a fresh representation / application before the 2^nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the impugned order by taking into consideration the decree in favour of the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders for mutating the revenue records in terms of the decree passed by the trial court, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A4/5379/2014 dated 24.02.2013 and signed on 24.02.2014 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation to the 2^nd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation being submitted, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the same taking into account the decree granted in favour of the petitioner and mutate the revenue records in terms of the decree passed by the trial co