Omandur Village Panchayat vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others

T. Raja, J.—It is the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 18799 of 2003 that the property covered in Survey Nos. 357/7A and 357/7C of

Omandur Village originally belonged to one P.M. Perianna Pillai, who donated the same to the village temple. In the said land, the people of the

said village, after collecting the money, constructed a Kalyanamandapam to utilize the revenue for the temple. Thereafter, the Tahsildar has issued

patta in the name of the President of the Village clearly mentioning that the property covered in Survey Nos. 357/7A and 357/7C belongs to the

Omandur Village. While so, when an application was filed by the fourth respondent for change of patta in his favour on the ground that he has

purchased the land from the third respondent-Palaniammal, the Tahsildar sent a communication dated 18.2.2002 to the petitioner calling for an

enquiry to be held on 25.2.2002 at 11 a.m. with regard to change of patta. Thereafter, on receipt of the communication, the petitioner went to the

office of the second respondent and waited till 5 p.m., but there was no enquiry held on that date and after some time, he was informed by the

Section Clerk that a communication would be sent regarding the next date of hearing. But, without informing any further date for enquiry, the

second respondent, all of a sudden, issued an order transferring the patta in respect of the property in favour of the fourth respondent. Learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court three documents, namely, sale deed dated 17.8.2006 executed by one

Thailammaiammal in favour of the fourth respondent, a copy of the water tax receipt dated 11.8.2001 carrying the name of the fourth respondent

and the death certificate dated 4.3.2009 issued by the VAO. By showing these three documents, it was argued that though the impugned order

dated 2.11.2001 was passed cancelling the name of the petitioner, in the said impugned order it was also recorded by the second respondent that

Kamatchiammal, who was the mother of third respondent-Palaniammal and Thailammaiammal, who was aunt to the said Palaniammal, were dead.

Therefore, when the second respondent recorded the death of Thailammaiammal on 2.11.2001, the death certificate issued by the revenue

authorities showing the death of Thailammaiammal as 27.9.2008 goes to depict that the order of Tahsildar was obtained fraudulently. On that

basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, by filing a counter, vehemently contended that the writ petitions filed by the

petitioner are frivolous one and it is not known on what basis the present writ petitions were filed to adjudicate the title of the property, when the

fourth respondent has purchased the property from one Thailammaiammal by registered sale deed dated 17.8.2006. Further, it was contended that

initially, the disputed property in Survey Nos. 357/A and 357/C of Omandur Village originally belonged to one P.M. Perianna Pillai, who had two

daughters, namely, Kamatchiammal and Thailammaiammal and thereafter, the said property was also partitioned between two sisters by a

registered document dated 16.8.1952, whereby, ''A'' schedule property was allotted to Kamatchiammal, while ''B'' schedule property was allotted

Thailammaiammal. Subsequently, the said Kamatchiammal executed a Will in favour of his grand daughter Saraswathi on 11.8.1953, but, after

some time, by cancelling this Will, another Will was executed on 29.11.1955, specifically making a recital therein that the said Saraswathi would

be able to get the property only if she marries the son of Palaniammal. But, as per the Will, since the said Saraswathi did not marry Palaniammal''s

son, the property was retained by the said Palaniammal/third respondent herein. Therefore, when these are the disputed facts involved in the cases

on hand, he cannot file the writ petitions challenging the impugned orders passed by the second respondent, unless a competent Civil Court gives

verdict on the title of the petitioner. On that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

Though this argument of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent appears to be appealing one, the way in which the second respondent

granted patta cancelling the name of the petitioner without holding proper enquiry is required to be interfered with, for yet another reason that in the

impugned order dated 2.11.2001, the second respondent recorded that the aunt of the third respondent-Palaniammal was no more on the date of

the impugned order, but, surprisingly, the death certificate dated 4.3.2009 filed before this Court shows that the said Thailammaiammal died only

on 27.9.2008, therefore, it is clear that the respondents 3 and 4 misguided the Tahsildar for getting patta in their favour. Hence, for the reasons

stated above, the second respondent-Tahsildar is directed to rehear both parties after giving proper notice and thereafter, he is at liberty to pass

proper orders on merits in respect of issuing patta as expeditiously as possible. In result, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner stand allowed by

setting aside the impugned orders passed by the second respondent-Tahsildar. No Costs.