S.C. Rathina Velu vs The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others

R. Subbiah, J.—The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.A1/3136/2012, dated 10.05.2013.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner''s father viz., Chandrasekaran Pillai owned landed properties at Achamapuram and Somur Villages, Karur Taluk and District. Initially, a deed of partition was entered into among the family members on 04.03.1964 and the landed properties were divided into three shares in favor of the petitioner, his father and his brother viz., S.C. Selvakumar. The third respondent herein is the widow of the petitioner''s brother viz., S.C. Selvakumar. It is further submitted that since the petitioner''s brother found it difficult to manage his share of landed property, another deed of partition was entered into on 23.02.1988, dividing the landed property among the petitioner, his father, his sister by name Malligavathi and his brother by name S.C. Selvakumar. Accordingly, the landed properties in Survey Nos. 84, 152, 153, 244, 245, 246, 247, 83/2, 213, 19, 20, 21, 34, 36, 37, 38, 44, 64 & 65 situated at Achamapuram Village, Karur Taluk and District and the landed properties in Survey Nos. 180, 181/2, 183/2, 288/1, 302/A1A, 372 & 373 situated at Somur Village, Karur Taluk and District were allotted to the petitioner. The landed properties in Survey Nos. 265/2, 261/2 to an extent of 8.29 Acres, and Survey No. 195 to an extent of 0.82 Acres situated at Achamapuram Village, were allotted to the petitioner''s brother viz., S.C. Selvakumar. Pursuant to the family settlement dated 23.02.1988, the petitioner approached the second respondent herein for change of patta and accordingly, by proceedings of the second respondent in Tho.Mu.De.Ke.2087/98, dated 02.11.1988 the change of patta was granted in respect of the lands situated in Achamapuram Village in terms of the family arrangement and by the proceedings of the second respondent in Tho.Mu.De.Ke.2087/98 dated 02.11.1988, the change of name in patta in respect of the properties in Somur Village was also granted. After the proceedings of the second respondent dated 02.11.1988, the change of name in patta was effected in respect of Survey No. 265/2, 261/2 & 195, Achamapuram Village, in favor of the petitioner''s brother viz., S.C. Selvakumar whereas, in respect of the petitioner''s share of land, the patta was changed in his name relating to the properties situated at Achampuram Village, but name change was not effected in respect of the landed properties situated at Somur Village. However, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of his share of landed properties mentioned above. Since the name change has not been effected in the patta in respect of the landed properties situated at Somur Village, pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 02.11.1988, the petitioner made several representations to the second respondent to effect the name change in patta and consequently, the patta was changed in his name in Patta No. 1066 in the year 2011. In respect of the properties in Achamapuram Village, the patta was issued in his name in the year 1988 itself. In such circumstances, the first respondent had issued a notice vide proceedings dated 26.11.2012 calling upon the petitioner to appear before him for an enquiry scheduled to be conducted on 03.12.2012 relating to change of patta in favour of the third respondent in respect of the landed property in Survey Nos. 181/2 & 288/1 situated at Somur Village and Achamapuram Village, Karur Taluk. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared before the first respondent on 03.12.2012 and explained his case and also made a written submission. While so, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the first respondent had passed the impugned order vide proceedings dated 10.05.2013 cancelling the patta which stood in the name of the petitioner and directed to enter the name of the third respondent and her legal heirs in the patta in respect of Survey Nos. 181/2, 183/2, 214/B1, 302/A1A, 372, 373, 288/1 situated at Somur Village and Survey Nos. 19/2, 20/2, 21, 34/1, 36, 37, 38, 44, 64 & 65 situated at Achamapuram Village, Karur Taluk and Karur District. Challenging the said proceedings of the first respondent dated 10.05.2013, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition.

Pending writ petition, the third respondent had died on 10.09.2013 and hence, her legal heirs were brought on record as respondents 4 to 7 vide order dated 06.02.2015 passed in M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2014.

On appearance, the sixth respondent has filed a counter affidavit on her behalf and on behalf of the respondents 4, 5 and 7 stating that their great grandfather Mr. Nataraja Pillai has got three sons viz., (1) Manickavasagam Pillai, (2) Chandrasekaran Pillai and (3) Thirugnanam Pillai. Chandrasekaran Pillai is their grandfather. There was a partition between the sons of Nataraja Pillai by a registered deed of partition dated 18-10-1955 registered as Document No. 3914/1955 on the file of Sub Registrar, Trichy. Their grandfather Mr. S.N. Chandrasekaran Pillai has got two sons by name (1) Ratina Velu/the writ petitioner herein and (2) Selvakumar/their father. There was a partition between S.N. Chandrasekaran Pillai and his two sons by a deed of partition dated 04-03-1964 vide Document No. 561/1964, registered at Sub Registrar, Trichy. In the partition dated 04-03-1964, their father Selvakumar was allotted "C" schedule of property. As on the date of partition, their father was a minor and hence, he was represented by his guardian and mother viz., Kalyana Sundarathu Ammal. Thereafter, the said Kalyana Sundarathu Ammal had settled the properties covered under the deed of partition dated 04-03-1964 in favour of Selvakumar on his attaining majority on 13-10-1971 and registered at Karur Sub Registrar Office as Document No. 2379/1971. Thereafter, from 04-03-1964 the respective parties became owners individually and mutation of revenue records were effected. While so, the father of the respondents 4 to 7 died on 17-03-1992 leaving behind their mother, the third respondent in the above writ petition and the respondents 4 to 7 as his legal representatives. The partition dated 04-03-1964 was acted upon and the properties were divided by metes and bounds. At the time of the death of their father, their mother was young and having 4 female children and so she moved to her mother''s place located in Kattuputhur, Tottiyam Taluk, Tiruchi District, but she was in constant guidance of the writ petitioner till 2011. After that, since the writ petitioner had tried to grab their properties, the mother of the respondents 4 to 7 had moved from the clutches of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was creating documents which lead to filing of civil suits. In this regard, a Civil Revision Petition in CRP (MD) No. 987 of 2013 is pending before this Court. In the meantime, the petitioner had transferred the Patta in his name without notice to the mother of the respondents 4 to 7 and hence, their mother filed an appeal before the first respondent for cancellation of patta granted in favour of the writ petitioner. The first respondent after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, cancelled the Patta transferred in favour of the writ petitioner. It is further stated that the statement of the writ petitioner that the landed properties in Survey Nos. 84, 152, 153, 244, 245, 246, 247, 83/2, 213, 19, 20, 21, 34, 36, 37, 38, 44, 64 & 65 situate at Achamapuram Village, Karur Taluk and District and the landed properties in S. Nos. 180, 181/2, 183/2, 288/1, 302/A1A, 372 & 373, at Somur Village, Karur Taluk and District was allotted to the Writ petitioner is absolutely false and the petitioner is making such a claim on the basis of a forged document dated 23-02-1988. Hence, any documents which the Writ petitioner relies upon cannot override the registered partition dated 04-03-1964 and the subsequent settlement dated 13-10-1971. It is further stated that the petitioner has alternative remedy and without exhausting the alternative remedy, he has straight away come to this Court by filing this Writ Petition. Thus, they sought dismissal of the Writ Petition.

When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that originally there was a partition between the petitioner, his brother and his father. Since the said partition was not effected, in the year 1988, a family arrangement was executed among the family members. Pursuant to the said family arrangement, a patta was granted in favour of the petitioner on 02.11.1988 by proceedings of the second respondent in respect of the properties in Survey Nos. 84, 152, 153, 244, 245, 246, 247, 83/2, 213, 19, 20, 21, 34, 36, 37, 38, 44, 64 & 65 situated at Achamapuram Village, Karur Taluk and District. Similarly, by another proceedings of the second respondent, the patta was granted in respect of the land in Survey Nos. 180, 181/2, 183/2, 288/1, 302/A1A, 372 & 373 situated at Somur Village, Karur Taluk and District. Though the proceedings were issued by the second respondent in the year 1988, the name change was effected only in the year 2011. Only at this juncture, the third respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner''s brother, has filed a petition before the first respondent to cancel the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. Based on the petition submitted by the third respondent for cancellation of patta, a notice was issued to the petitioner and in the notice only two survey numbers were mentioned viz., S. No. 181/2 and 288/1. But after enquiry, on erroneous reasons the patta granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said survey numbers was set aside by the first respondent by order dated 10.05.2013. Assailing the said order dated 10.05.2013 the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by proceedings of the second respondent dated 02.11.1988, the name change of patta was ordered in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of the properties in Achamapuram Village and also Somur Village in favour of the petitioner. Now, after 28 years from the date of the proceedings of the second respondent, the third respondent had filed a petition for cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, when there is a long delay, the first respondent ought not to have entertained the petition. Secondly, though the notice was issued only in respect of two survey numbers, the patta in respect of all the survey numbers issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the first respondent.

The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed and submitted that by a family partition dated 04.03.1964, the landed properties situated in Survey Nos. 84, 152, 153, 244, 245, 246, 247, 83/2, 213, 19, 20, 21, 34, 36, 37, 38, 44, 64 & 65, 265/2, 261/2 and 195 situated at Achamapuram Village, Karur Taluk and District and the landed properties in Survey Nos. 180, 181/2, 183/2, 288/1, 302/A1A, 372 & 373 situated at Somur Village, Karur Taluk and District were partitioned among the petitioner, the petitioner''s father and his brother viz., S.C. Selvakumar, the husband of the third respondent. While so, in the year 1988, the petitioner created a family arrangement document dated 23.02.1988 as if through the said family arrangement certain survey numbers in Achammapuram Village and Somur Village were allotted to him. The said document is a fabricated document and based on the said document, he applied for change of patta in his favour. The second respondent by his proceedings dated 02.11.1988 has ordered for change of the patta in favour of the petitioner. Actually, the said document is a created document and in fact, the first respondent vide proceedings dated 10.05.2013 has stated that no records were available on the file relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 02.11.1988 changing the patta in favour of the petitioner. Further, the third respondent came to know about the change of patta in the name of the petitioner only in the year 2011. Though the petitioner claims that on 02.11.1988 the patta was transferred in his name, he approached the second respondent only in the year 2011 to give effect to the alleged proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that had there been any proceedings by the second respondent on 02.11.1988, with regard to the change of patta in respect of the subject property in favour of the petitioner herein, he would not have waited for a long time to give effect to the alleged proceedings. Only in the year 0211, the petitioner approached the second respondent to give effect to the proceedings. Thus the counsel for the respondents said that the long delay of 28 years in approaching the first respondent to give effect to the alleged proceedings dated 02.11.1988 itself show that based on the alleged document the petitioner has obtained patta after a long delay of 28 years. Since the third respondent came to know about the change of patta in favour of the petitioner in the year 2011, immediately she moved the first respondent to cancel the patta. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the third respondent. It is further submitted that as the petitioner is having alternative remedy under the Patta Pass Book Act, the matter need not be remitted back to the first respondent and the writ petition may be dismissed.

Heard the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

Keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for all the parties and on careful perusal of the entire materials available on record, I find that though the petitioner claims that on 02.11.1988 the patta was transferred in his name, he kept quiet all along for 28 years, he approached the second respondent only in the year 2011 to give effect to the alleged proceedings. Thereafter only, the third respondent came to know about the transfer of patta in the name of the petitioner. According to the respondents 4 to 7, the proceedings issued by the second respondent dated 02.11.1988 is based on the fabricated document dated 23.02.1988. But, as per the partition dated 04.03.1964, all the properties were partitioned among the petitioner, his father and his brother vis., S.C. Selvakumar, the husband of the third respondent and thereafter, no other partition had taken place as alleged by the petitioner in the year 1988. Therefore, the petitioner seems to have created a family arrangement document dated 23.02.1988 and based on the same, the second respondent had issued the proceedings dated 02.11.1988. However, on appeal, the proceedings of the second respondent dated 02.11.1988 were cancelled by the authority concerned. In fact, in the order of the first respondent, it is specifically stated that no records were available on the file with regard to the proceedings of the second respondent viz., Tho.Mu.Di.Ke.2088/98, dated 02.11.1988. The relevant passage of the order of the first respondent is as under:

From the perusal of the order, I find some force in the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent that the third respondent came to know about the change of patta in the name of the petitioner only in the year 2011 when the petitioner made an attempt to give effect to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 02.11.1988. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent has passed the impugned order without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice, cannot be accepted particularly when the petitioner was heard before passing the impugned order. Since this Court has come to the conclusion that there is no violation of principles of natural justice, this writ itself is not maintainable, when the petitioner is having alternative remedy before the District Revenue Officer. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the District Revenue Officer, if he so desires. In the event of the petitioner filing revision before the District Revenue Officer, for the purpose of computing limitation, the period of pendency of the Writ Petition can be excluded. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.