T.S. Saravanakumar vs The District Collector

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner claims that he has got title for the properties comprised in a total number of 15 survey numbers, viz. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8/1, 8/2, 9/1, 9/3, 11/1, 11/3, 11/4, 12 and 16, at Karaichuthupudur Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

He further claims that he purchased these properties by means of a registered sale deed dated 12.01.2009 from four persons. Based on the said sale deed and by claiming title, the petitioner made an application to the second respondent/Tahsildar, on 18.02.2011, for issuing joint patta for those properties by deleting the names of the vendors of the petitioner. But the same was not considered, despite the fact that the petitioner made further representation to the higher authorities. In those circumstances, the petitioner has come up before this Court with this writ petition seeking a Mandamus to the Tahsildar to issue joint patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of the above stated survey numbers along with other joint patta holders.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. I have also perused the records carefully.

The Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, has filed a detailed counter, wherein it is stated that, so far as S.No. 8/2 is concerned, it does not belong to the vendors of the petitioner and therefore, patta cannot be issued for this survey number. It is further stated that the Tahsildar, by his Proceedings in No. A3/10219/11 dated 26.05.2011, informed the petitioner to approach the District Revenue Officer for necessary relief.

The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the petitioner had not given the precise survey numbers, upon which the petitioner claims title. He further submitted that all the survey numbers had already been subdivided and pattas have been accordingly issued. He further submitted that without giving correct particulars of the survey numbers, the petitioner claims title and a representation was also made. Hence, the said representation does not deserve any consideration. The learned counsel for the third respondent would, therefore, pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have considered the above submissions.

The sale deed dated 12.01.2009 itself would go to show that even on the date of sale, all the above survey numbers had already been subdivided, but in the representation made to the Tahsildar as well as in the present writ petition, the petitioner has not given the precise subdivided survey numbers so as to enable the Tahsildar to identify the property and to decide whether the petitioner is entitled for joint patta or not. In my considered opinion, for want of correct particulars regarding survey numbers, including the Sub-Division numbers and the four boundaries, it may not be possible for the Tahsildar to identify the property, for which the petitioner seeks joint patta. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. At the same time, in my considered opinion, it would be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the Tahsildar, giving correct particulars of the survey numbers, Sub-Division numbers and the four boundaries of the properties, so as to enable the Tahsildar to identify the properties and then, to decide, as to whether to issue joint patta or individual patta to the petitioner.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:

1) The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application to the second respondent giving all the details of survey numbers, Sub-Division numbers and four boundaries for the properties for which he claims title, along with supporting documents;

2) If any such application is made, the second respondent shall conduct appropriate enquiry, afford sufficient opportunity to all the interested persons including the persons in whose names pattas have been issued either individually or jointly, in respect of the above survey numbers, and then pass appropriate orders, strictly on the basis of merit, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.