Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79353
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mohammed Shaffiq, J
V.MUNIAMMAL – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
Writ Petition No.23671 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.L.Sathiyaraj for Mr.A.Mohamed Ashfalk
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader
The court upheld the importance of fair inquiry in matters concerning land ownership, particularly the validity of heirship claims and associated documentation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner seeking cancellation of bogus Pattas - Petitioner contended that her brother-in-laws obtained a bogus Legal Heir Certificate and Patta for the said land, denying her rightful claim - Court directing the concerned respondent to conduct an enquiry on the issuance of Patta and pass appropriate orders. (Paras 1-11)
(B) Power of the High Court - High Court may direct authorities to conduct inquiries regarding land rights to ensure justice is served. (Paras 10-11)
Facts of the case:
The land in question originally belonged to the petitioner's father-in-law, and the petitioner sought to enforce her claim to her deceased husband's share against her brother-in-laws who obtained bogus documentation.
Findings of Court:
Court directed that an inquiry be conducted into the matter regarding the Patta for the property in question and that appropriate orders be passed after due notice to involved parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the legal documentations concerning land rights were valid and necessary actions were taken by the authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the importance of conducting inquiries into the validity of land documentation, thereby protecting legal rights granted by inheritance.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's directive for an enquiry into land rights. (Para 1 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. petitioner's legal claim based on inheritance. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. details of bogus documentation. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. In view of the nature of the order that is going to be passed in the present writ petition, notice to respondents 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 is dispensed with.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to conduct an enquiry by issuing Notices to all the necessary parties, to cancel the bogus Pattas issued in respect of the property comprised in Survey Nos.85/10A, 88/7A, 88/7B, 22/9A, 88/7C & 22/9B situated at Koraikeni Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District by considering the Petitioner's Representation dated 22.09.2024 and the Proceedings dated 10.12.2024 vide Oo.Mu.Aa3/2680114/2024 issued by the 1st respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the land measuring an extent of
2.5 Acres situated at Koraikeni Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District originally belonged to petitioner's father-in-law viz., Late Mr.A.Manjini @ Manjini Gounder. The petitioner's father-in-law had four sons and one daughter viz., (i) M.Subramani (ii) M.Ramalingam (Died)
(iii) M.Veerappan (Died) (Petitioner's husband)
(iv) M.Kannan (v) M.Poorani The petitioner's father-in-law died intestate in the year 1974 leaving behind his wife and children as his legal heirs. After the demise of petitioner's father-in-law, petitioner's brother-in-laws viz., M.Subramani and M.Kannan took over the aforesaid land and they were doing agriculture in the said land.
4. While so, the petitioner's husband viz., Mr.M.Veerappan died in the year 1996 and after the demise of petitioner's husband, the petitioner insisted her brother-in-laws, M.Subramani and M.Kannan to execute a Partition Deed pertaining to her deceased husband's share over the subject land, but, they denied to do so.
5. The petitioner's brother-in-laws, M.Subramani and M.Kannan obtained a bogus Legal Heir Certificate of Late Mr.A.Manjini @ Manjini Gounder, wherein, their names were only included as legal heirs of the deceased Mr.A.Manjini @ Manjini Gounder and the petitioner's husband name was not included as a legal heir of the deceased Mr.A.Manjini @ Manjini Gounder. On the strength of said bogus Legal Heir Certificate, the petitioner's brother-in-laws, M.Subramani and M.Kannan obtained Patta for the subject land in their favour. Further, during the year 2016, by using the said bogus Patta, M.Kannan had settled his share in the subject land, to and in favour of his two sons viz., K.Manohar & K.Loganathan by way of a Settlement Deed.
6. Details of the bogus Pattas issued in favour of M.Subramani, K.Manohar and K.Loganathan are as follows:
Old Survey No.
New Survey No.
Patta No.
Name of the Patta Holders
105/8A
85/10A
225
M.Subramani S/o. A.Manjini
104/5
88/7A
846
K.Manohar S/o. M.Kannan
104/5, 122/12
88/7B, 22/9A
847
K.Manohar S/o. M.Kannan
104/5, 122/12
88/7C, 22/9B
848
K.Loganathan S/o. M.Kannan
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid acts of M.Subramani and M.Kannan, the petitioner made a Representation dated 22.09.2024 to the respondents 1, 3, 4 & 5, requesting to conduct an enquiry to cancel the aforesaid bogus Pattas issued in favour of M.Subramani, K.Manohar and K.Loganathan.
8. Subsequently, the 1st respondent vide Proceedings dated
10.12.2024 bearing Oo.Mu.Aa3/2680114/2024, directed the 4th respondent to take necessary action on the petitioner's Representation dated 22.09.2024. However, till date, no steps have been taken by the 4th respondent pursuant to the direction issued by the 1st respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the property comprised in Survey No.85/10A, the property comprised in all other Survey Numbers viz., Survey
