Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3808 (MAD)

M. Liagat Ali v. Tahsildar

2014-10-14

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
Judgment : 1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. According to the petitioner, he has submitted his representations dated 29.10.2012, 09.01.2013 and 25.02.2013 to the Respondents seeking issuance of patta in his name to the property at R.S.No.306/1, Kayamoli Village, Tiruchendur Sub Registrar's Office, admeasuring an extent of about 2 acres 20 cents. However, the said representations were not taken into account by the first Respondent/Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tiruchendur Post, Tuticorin District and consequently he is constrained to file the present writ petition seeking the relief of 'Mandamus' in issue. 3. According to the petitioner, his mother had settled one of her properties in his favour by means of 'Hiba' (Oral Gift) and this was evidenced by means of self-declaration, duly attested by two witnesses. As a matter of fact, all the legal heirs of late Kader Meeran Natchi gave 'No Objection Letter' for transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner. He is in possession and enjoyment of the said gifted land measuring an extent of 2 acre 20 cents alongwith his adjacent lands measuring 7 acres and continuously caring out cultivation through his uncle. 4. The principal stand taken on behalf of the petitioner is that all the necessary ingredients of Mohammedan Law for 'Hiba' were fulfilled in his case and in fact no registration is required for 'Hiba' as per Mohammedan Law. The petitioner had sent representations to the Second Respondent/District Collector, Tuticorin District with all relevant papers just like an 'Appeal' and in fact the District Collector gave a reply to his representations dated 29.10.2012, 09.01.2013 and 25.02.2013, addressed to the First Respondent/Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's application. Inspite of the direction issued by the Second Respondent, the first Respondent/Tahsildar had neglected to consider the petitioner's application and according to the petitioner, the matter had been dragged for more than a year inspite of the second respondent's reminders. In effect, the plea of the petitioner is that he is entitled for issuance of patta in the light of aforesaid backdrop and in fact the first respondent/Tahildar, Taluk Office, Tiruchendur Post, Tuticorin District had not cared to send any reply to the representations made by him. 5. In effect, the plea of the petitioner is that he is entitled for issuance of patta in the light of aforesaid backdrop and in fact the first respondent/Tahildar, Taluk Office, Tiruchendur Post, Tuticorin District had not cared to send any reply to the representations made by him. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner is only seeking a limited relief of issuance of direction by this Court to issue patta in his name to the property at R.S.No.306/1, Kayamoli Village, Tiruchendur Sub Registrar's Office, measuring an extent of 2 acres 20 cents, on the basis of his representations dated 29.10.2012, 09.01.2013 and 25.02.2013 respectively, this Court on the basis of Equity, Fairplay and Good Conscience, directs the First Respondent to look into the representations made by the petitioner, dated 29.10.2012, 09.01.2013 and 25.02.2013 in a just, Fair and objective manner and to dispose of the same on merits in the manner known to law and in accordance with Law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (of course, after providing necessary opportunities to the petitioner by following the principles of natural justice in its letter and spirit). It is open to the petitioner to furnish copies of necessary documents before the first respondent at the time of enquiry/his representations dated 29.10.2012, 09.01.2013 and 25.02.2013 being considered and disposed of by the authority concerned and the first Respondent/Tahsildar is to appreciate the said documents to be submitted by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Law within the time fixed by this Court. 6. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.