The issuance of a patta must follow procedural guidelines ensuring fairness and proper inquiry, especially when title disputes exist.

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.05.2009, passed by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 5, in proceedings D.Dis (K4) 10138/06 and dated 14.05.2009 and quash the same as illegal incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents to restore the patta in the name of petitioner with respect to property at survey number 13/2A2 and 13/2B2 measuring an extent of 0.42 acres and 0.84 acre situate at Motham Agraharam village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri district.

2. The land involved in the present dispute is survey No.13/2A and 13/2B in Motham Agraharam village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. The question is to whether the Tahsildar was correct in granting patta to the writ petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, he purchased 0.42 acre out of 0.59 acre in survey No.13/2A and extent of 0.84 acre in Survey No.13/2B, from one Ramesh, S/o. Muniappa and one Jayammal. The said Ramesh and Jayammal are children of Lt. Muniappa.

3. The petitioner states that, he purchased the property on 16.06.1991 at Motham Agraharam Village, in Survey No.13/2A and 13/2B. The property was owned by one Chinna Madhiah Reddy and one Ramaiah. Chinna Madhiah Reddy owned 2.13 acre and Ramaiah owned 3.4 acre. The petitioner states that, out of 2.13 acre, with Chinna Madhiah Reddy, Ramaiah purchased another 1.54 acre from Chinna Madhiah Reddy in the year 1922. The said 1.54 acre, which was purchased in the year 1922, came to the share of Muniyappa, father of Ramesh and Jayammal and on his death, the property was inheritted by Ramesh and Jayammal. The petitioner states that, he has purchased the property from the owners of the property, the Ramesh and Jayammal who owned 1.54 acre being the property purchased by Ramaiah.

4. According to the writ petitioner, the respondent P.Narayana Reddy obtained patta for 1.98 acre in Survey No.13/2A, which included 0.5 acre owned by Ramesh. Ramesh objected before Tahsildar. Survey No.13/2A was therefore sub divided in to Survey No.13/2A and 13/2A2 and patta for 0.42 acre came to Ramesh and the petitioner has got the patta of the land. The petitioner also states that the respondent P.Narayana Reddy filed a suit in O.S.No.39 of 1996, which includes the present land in question. The suit of P.Narayana Reddy, in which the petitioner was impleaded as third defendant was one for injunction and declaration. The present area which comes under in Survey No.13/2A is included in the 'B' schedule in the suit.

5. The petitioner states that, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn and liberty has given to file a fresh suit. The said order granting liberty was challenged by Ramesh in C.R.P.No.998 of 1997, before this Court on the ground that, the subsequent suit would be barred by limitation and liberty granted would have effect of extending the scope of limitation. This Court while dismissing the C.R.P.No.998 of 1997, held that, no Court has the power to extend limitation. The petitioner states that, fresh suit has not been filed after the withdrawal of the suit. The Tahsildar granted patta to the petitioner. The respondent herein, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur, who by his order dated 06.08.2007, set aside the order of the Tahsildar on the ground that, the Tahsildar did not follow the Survey procedures to sub divide the land and no notice was issued to the respondent herein.

6. Against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri, who by his order dated 21.07.2006, set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and restored the order of Tahsildar again