Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2899 (MAD)

L. Hemalatha v. Collector, Vellore District

2012-07-09

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land, bearing plot No. 52, comprised in S.No.524/3B, Vadamambakkam Village, Arakkonam Taluk, having an extent of 1800 square feet. She had purchased the said property, by way of a registered Sale Deed, bearing Document No.1228/2006, on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar No.2, Arakkonam. After the petitioner had purchased the land, she had submitted an application to the second respondent, on 16.09.2008, seeking subdivision of the property and for the issuance of a patta in her name. She had also paid the necessary fee on the same day. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the patta, in respect of the property in question, had been issued in the name of the vendor, based on the Judgment of this Court, made in A.S.No.108 of 1991, dated 26.11.2001. Therefore, it is not open to the second respondent, to reject the request of the petitioner for the subdivision of the property in question and for the issuance of patta, stating that it is a land meant for the depressed classes (D.C.Land). As such, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered, as she belongs to Kammavar Naidu community. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the second respondent had not taken into consideration the judgment of the First appellate court, dated 26.11.2001, in A.S.No. 108 of 1991, before rejecting the request of the petitioner, which has become final, in view of the fact that no Second Appeal had been filed against the said judgment. 5. He had further submitted that this Court had passed an order, dated 14.10.2011, in W.P.No.23550 of 2011, to consider the request of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon. However, the second respondent had rejected the request made by the petitioner, erroneously, without considering the Judgment, dated 26.11.2001, made in A.S.No.108 of 1991. 6. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 12.02.2012. 6. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 12.02.2012. The second respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for the Subdivision of the property in question and for the issuance of a patta in his favour, taking into consideration the Judgment, dated 26.11.2001, made in A.S.No.108 of 1991, if it had become final, and if there are no other legal impediments for complying with the request of the petitioner. The said exercise shall be done by the second respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.