Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 62 (MAD)

A. Jeyalakshmi v. Tahsildar

2019-01-03

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

body2019
ORDER : 1. Mr. P. Kannithevan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 03.12.2018, to take action in order to remove/cancel the modifications of entries made in Patta No.37, in connection with the agriculture land under cultivation, to an extent 3.65 Acres, comprised in S.No.82/1C, situated at No.13, Jothimanickam Village, within limits of Usilampatti Taluk. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the second daughter of one Angan [Late] and Saroja and her blood sister viz., Selvi is living at Madurai District. Originally, the above said property belonged to her forefather one Periya Karuppa Thevar and her grandfather Sakkarai Periya Karuppa Thevar. The petitioner's father Angan and one Thavasi are brothers, who were born to the petitioner's grandfather. After the death of the petitioner's grandfather Sakkarai Periya Karuppa Thevar, the petitioner's father and Thavasi, who is the brother of her father, became legal heirs. 4. The petitioner submits that the said Thavasi was working in District Co-operative Bank at Pondicherry and residing there with his wife viz., Samuthiram and his daughter viz., Divya. The petitioner's grandfather Sakkarai Periya Karuppa Thevar died in the year 1972 and her father died in the year 1979 and the brother of her father Thavasi died on 13.03.2011 at Pondicherry and his wife viz., Samuthiram died on 05.09.2014. After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner, her mother and her sister became legal heirs of her father and after the death of Thavasi and his wife, the petitioner's cousin sister Divya became sole legal heir of her parents. 5. The petitioner further submits that the above mentioned property was classified as Inam Land and granted to Ammachiar Kovil at Jothimanickam Village and legal action was held between the petitioner's grandfather and HR & CE Department before the Settlement Tahsildar, Madurai. 5. The petitioner further submits that the above mentioned property was classified as Inam Land and granted to Ammachiar Kovil at Jothimanickam Village and legal action was held between the petitioner's grandfather and HR & CE Department before the Settlement Tahsildar, Madurai. While pending enquiry, the petitioner's grandfather died and the brother of the petitioner's father has given consent letter to the Settlement Tahsildar to issue Patta in favour of the petitioner's father viz., Angan and final order has been passed in favour her family and Patta was issued in the name of the petitioner's mother and after the death of her mother, the petitioner's name and her sister's name were included in Patta No.37 in respect of the above said property. The petitioner's family members are in possession and enjoyment of the said land for the past 40 years. While so, on 13.11.2018, one Vignesh came to the above mentioned land and started to cultivate the land and when the petitioner intervened, he stated that he is a legal heir of Thavasi, who is the brother of the petitioner's father and his name has been included in Patta No.37. He went out from the said land on protest made by the petitioner's family and later on, his father Murugan lodged a complaint against them before the Valandhur Police Station in this regard. They were appeared on 14.11.2018 and in the enquiry, he had stated that for the past 45 years, the land was being cultivated by him and produced two Patta copies. 6. The petitioner further submits that the said Vignesh has no authority to deal with the said property, as he is neither the legal heir of her family nor the said Thavasi or her cousin sister Divya, who died on 23.07.2017 under suspicious circumstances and a case was registered in Crime No.89 of 2017 and there are sufficient material evidences are collected by her to show the involvement of Vignesh in suspicious death of her cousin sister and separate legal proceedings are under process. On coming to know about the action taken by the petitioner, the said Vignesh wanted to give disturbance to the petitioner as counter blast in order to stop the petitioner from initiating action against him. But, as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, he cannot be termed as legal representative of either Thavasi or the petitioner's cousin sister Divya. 7. But, as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, he cannot be termed as legal representative of either Thavasi or the petitioner's cousin sister Divya. 7. The petitioner also submits that in the enquiry, which was held on 14.11.2018 before the Valandhur Police Station, she came to know that the said Vignesh has filed a suit in O.S.No.1837 of 2017 before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry, for declaration, declaring him as legal heir of her cousin sister Divya and he has also stated that there are no blood relations for her cousin sister. However, in the said suit, he has cited one C.A. Poongani as sole defendant and obtained decree in his favour. The decree obtained by the said Vignesh itself is legally unsustainable and the petitioner and her mother are the blood relations of Divya and they are the Class II Legal Heirs according to Hindu Succession Act. The said Vignesh has obtained the decree by fraud and suppression of material facts and none of the procedure stated in the Patta Pass Book Act was adopted by the respondent and the respondent has simply overlooked all mandate procedures for insertion of name of Vignesh in the Patta. Challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present Writ Petition. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 9. It is relevant to extract below Sections 12 and 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 and Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987. ''Sections 12 and 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983:- 12. Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Tahsildar under this Act may, within such period as may be prescribed, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed and the decision of such authority on such appeal shall subject to the provisions of section 13, be final. 13. Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Tahsildar under this Act may, within such period as may be prescribed, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed and the decision of such authority on such appeal shall subject to the provisions of section 13, be final. 13. Revision.-Any officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of District Revenue Officer authorised by the Government, by notification in this behalf for such area as may be specified in the notification, may of his own motion or on the application of a party call for and examine the records of any Tahsildar or appellate authority within his jurisdiction in respect of any proceeding under this Act and pass such orders as he may think fit: Provided that no such order prejudicial to any person shall be made unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making his representation. Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987:- 14. Appeal.-An appeal against any order of the Tahsildar passed under the Act shall be filed before the officer in charge of Revenue Division in whose jurisdiction the property lies within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the order.'' 10. Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, provides an appeal remedy against an order made by the Tahsildar under the said Act. Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987, states that the Revenue Divisional Officer is the appellate authority to hear the appeal to be preferred under Section 12 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act provides remedy by way of revision to the District Revenue Officer either on an application of a party or in his own motion. Therefore, when the petitioner has got an alternate remedy under the above Act, she cannot directly approach this Court for considering her case. Hence, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained at this stage. It is left open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority stating all the reasons that she had no prior knowledge about the same and no opportunity was given to her while including the name of Vignesh in Patta No.37 by the respondent. Hence, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained at this stage. It is left open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority stating all the reasons that she had no prior knowledge about the same and no opportunity was given to her while including the name of Vignesh in Patta No.37 by the respondent. As per Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, an opportunity ought to have given by the respondent to the interested parties and according to the petitioner, no such opportunity was given to her. Hence, in the appeal, the same has to be considered by the appellate authority. 11. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.