COMMON ORDER

WP(MD).No.6105 of 2012 has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to transfer patta relating to S.F.No.558/2, Sammattividuthi Village, Pudukkottai Taluk, in the name of the petitioners and respondents 4 to 6.

2.WP(MD).No.3969 of 2012 has been filed challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Trichy on 20.02.2012 under which the authorities have directed the Sub Inspector ( Land Reforms) to effect mutation in the Village and Taluk account as Government surplus Tharisu and send a report to him.

The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(MD).No.6015 of 2012 has contended as follows:

3.The petitioners and the respondents 4 to 6 are said to have been purchased an extent of 16.39.50 Hectare in Survey No.558/2 from one Santha and his son under a registered sale deed dated 13.01.2005. According to the petitioners, the revenue records were also standing in the name of the vendors and thereafter, patta was also transferred in the name of the petitioners and respondents 4 to 6 by an order of the third respondent dated 27.11.2006. Thereafter, relevant entries were made in 'A' Register, Adangal and Chitta. The second respondent had issued an order regarding the properties purchased by them to change the classification as Government Ceiling Waste. Only thereafter, they came to know that the third respondent has unilaterally changed the patta granted in favour of the petitioners in the name of the second respondent without giving any notice or without hearing the petitioners about the property. Based on the unilateral communication sent by the second respondent, the third respondent has effected mutation in the revenue records without issuing notice to the writ petitioners in whose name patta was standing. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to again change patta in the name of the petitioners and the respondents 4 to 6.

The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(MD).No.3989 of 2012 has contended as follows:

4.Several survey numbers with a total extent of 336.55 acres originally belonged to the first petitioner's wife's ancestor namely A.Ragunatha Rao. In the year 1956, the sons of A.Ragunatha Rao namely R.Venkat Rao and R.Appusamy Rao have executed a release deed in favour of his father A.Ragunatha Rao. Thereafter, in the year 1960, the above said A.Ragunatha Rao has executed a registered statement dated 04.04.1960 by gifting five shares out of 25 shares in favour of one N.Venkatakrishna Rao, R.Venkat Rao and one Vaithiyanathasasthiri , retaining 1/5th for himself.

5.According to the petitioners, the said A.Ragunatha Rao had died in the year 1963 leaving his sons namely R.Venkat Rao and R.Appusamy Rao as his legal heirs.The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Trichy had issued a notification under Section 18(1) of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and Lands) Act, 1961 and the same was published in the gazette on 10.01.1980 declaring certain extent of land of R.Appusamy Rao as surplus as if R.Appusamy Rao is the exclusive owner of the properties in Sammatti Viduthi Village. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Trichy has issued a notification under Section 18(1) after the death of Appusamy Rao and hence, the entire notification is null and void. The Authorised Officer has not chosen to issue notice to the legal heirs of Appusamy Rao. The Authorised Officer ignoring the registered document, had issued notice in favour of the Appusamy Rao who was not the owner of the property at that point of time.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the said N.Venkatakrishna Rao died on 06.05.1980 leaving his wife Santha and one Suriyaprakash as his legal heirs. When the first petitioner's wife came to know about the wrong issuance of notification in favour of Appusamy Rao, submitted a representations to the first respondent. The said application was returned with an endorseme