R. Indhira vs The District Collector

V. Dhanapalan, J.—By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

Heard Mr. V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for Mr. MA.P.Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

The relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition is for directing the respondents to consider her representation dated 09.12.2013, seeking patta for the house at Natham S. No. 482/3, Mamarapatti Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

The case of the petitioner is that her family is in occupation of the property at S. No. 482/3, Mamarapatti Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District for more than 30 years to the extent of 2.59 cents, which is classified as Grama Natham in the revenue records. Though she had approached the concerned authority for issuance of patta in her favour from the year 1991, her request has neither been adhered to nor had any action taken thereon. It is claimed by her that as per the Government Orders, she is entitled to patta in respect of 3 cents of her house site and therefore, there is no impediment for the respondents to issue patta in her favour. Since the respondents have not acted upon her representation, the petitioner is before this Court.

To the above claim, the 3rd respondent has filed a counter, wherein it has been inter alia stated as under:

i) The land in S. No. 482/3, measuring to an extent of 0.0105.0 sq.mts. or 2= cents is classified as Natham Government poramboke land during the Natham survey and settlement operations in the year 1984-1985 and the said site is kept reserved for the use of communal purpose of the public in the village.

ii) That the husband of the petitioner Thiru Mohanasundram is working as Assistant Manager in Tiruchengode Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., which is a part of the Co-operative Department of Tamil Nadu Government. His pay and allowances for the above post is Rs. 27,000/-p.m. and her unmarried son is also working at Bangalore in a Software Company, earning Rs. 30,000/- per month.

iii) That the husband of the petitioner has constructed a pucca house in S. No. 481/10 of the Village and the patta of the said house, which is worth about Rs. 10,00,000/-, also stands in the name of her husband under Natham Patta No. 604, wherein the entire family members are residing. While so, the husband of the petitioner has wantonly encroached the Government Poramboke Natham land and put up temporary asbestos shed in the said vacant land in S. No. 482/3 to grab the Government land, for which the petitioner has requested for house site patta in her name.

iv) That the writ petitioner is not eligible to get patta in the Natham Government Land, which is reserved for future Government purpose of the Village, as she is a rich pattadar, owning a separate house in Natham S. No. 481/10 of the Village. Moreover, there is no proof or evidence that she has got 30 years of enjoyment in the Government Land. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

The facts pleaded by the respective parties would reveal that though the land in question, as claimed in S. No. 482/3 is a Natham Government Poramboke land, the petitioner claims that her possession in the said land is based on certain vested rights as per the Government Orders, which has to be considered and the patta to be issued. In support of her stand, she has produced a copy of House Tax Receipt No. 6953 dated 18.09.2012 and Voter Identity Card, showing her address as D. No. 2/108, Mamarapatti, Mallasamuthram Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that in respect of the land in question, there was a civil suit for partition between the parties, which includes the petitioner''s husband and the decree is also binding.

If that could be the position, though certain material information has been informed of in the counter by the 3rd respondent with regard to the status of the petitioner, her husband and her family, there is no whisper about her representation dated 09.12.2013 in the counter. Once a representation is made to the authority concerned, it is obligatory on the part of any authority to take a decision in one way or the other and communicate the said decision arrived at thereon to the person concerned. Admittedly, the said exercise has not been complied with by the 1st respondent herein.

In the light of the above and also considering the fact the petitioner has come out with the limited prayer of mandamus for direction to the respondents, without adverting into the merits of the case, the 1st respondent herein is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.12.2013 on merits and in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.