Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
A. ARUMAINATHAN V/S THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, KANJEEPURAM DISTRICT & OTHERS, decided on Wednesday, September 26, 2012.
[ In the High Court of Madras, Writ Petition No.25086 of 2009. ] 26/09/2012
Judge(s) : M. JAICHANDREN
Advocate(s) : R. Gandhi, Senior V.S. Sivasundaram. R1, R2, P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram, AGP, R3, S. Srinivasa Narayanan.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page




a,arumainathan,the,district,revenue,kanjeepuram,district,and,









judgment - (Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of 1st respondent relating to the impugned Notice dated 13.11.2009 in his proceedings Na.Ka.20459/2009 No.4 and quash the same and consequentially directing the 2nd respondent to hold enquiry in the appeal proceedings Na.4400/07/B dated  21/09/07 and pass final order under section 12 of T.N.Patta Pass Book Act 1983 (Act 4 of 1986) in respect of land comprised in S.Nos.15/1 16/1 & 16/3 of Narasingakuppam Village Thirukazhukundram Taluk Kanjeepuram District.)1. Heard Mr.R.Gandhi the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the first respondent had issued the impugned notice dated 13.11.2009 without having the power or the authority to do so and therefore the said notice is liable to be set aside.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further stated that the third respondent had submitted a representation before the Tahsildar Thirukazhukundram Taluk Kancheepuram District for the grant of a joint patta in respect of the properties situated in old Paimash Nos.2A 13/1 and 13/3 bearing survey Nos.15/1 16/1 and 16/3 in Narasankuppam village Thirukazhukundram Taluk Kancheepuram District. The Tahsildar Thirukazhukundram Taluk Kancheepuram District had rejected the request of the petitioner for the grant of joint patta stating that the petitioner could get his relief only after establishing his rights by approaching the appropriate civil forum by way of a civil suit. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar Thirukazhukundram Taluk Kancheepuram District dated 19.7.2007 the third respondent had filed an appeal dated 27.7.2007 before the second respondent. While so the first respondent had issued the impugned notice dated 13.11.2009 asking the petitioner to appear before him for an enquiry in spite of the appeal filed by the third respondent pending on the file of the second respondent.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that when an appeal had been preferred by the third respondent before the second respondent challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar Thirukazhukundram Taluk dated 19.7.2007 under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act 1983 it is not open to the first respondent to issue the impugned notice dated 13.11.2009 calling the petitioner for an enquiry relating to the request of the third respondent for the issuance of a joint patta in respect of the properties in question.5. It had also been stated that the impugned notice of the the first respondent dated 13.11.2009 had not been issued under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act 1983. It is the second respondent who has the power and the authority to decide the appeal filed by the second respondent against the order of the Tahsildar Thirukazhukundram Taluk. Thereafter it would be open to the parties concerned to file a revision as per Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act 1983 if so advised.6. It had been further stated that the petitioner had also obtained a judgment and decree in O.S.No.36 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif–cum-Judicial Magistrate Thirukazhukundram Taluk declaring his title in respect of the properties in question. As such it is for the second respondent to decide the issues arising for his consideration in the appeal filed by the third respondent dated 27.7.2007.7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first and the second respondents it has been stated that the application had been filed by the third respondent for rectification of the defects in the Updating Registry Accounts and therefore it does not fall under the purview of Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act 1983. The subject matter is not pending for consideration before the second respondent under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act 1983 as alleged by the petitioner. The second respondent after completing the enquiry had submitted a report to the first respondent who is the competent authority to pass the orders relating to the rectification of the defects in the Updating Registry Accounts in view of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.385 Revenue Department dated 17.8.2004.8. It has also been stated that in the impugned notice dated 13.11.2009 issued by the first respondent there is no mention of Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act 1983. As such it cannot be stated that there are parallel proceedings being conducted by the first and the second respondents.9. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent had submitted that it cannot be said by the petitioner that the first respondent does not have the power or the authority to issue the impugned notice dated 13.11.2009. Even though the third respondent had filed an appeal before the second respondent challenging the order of the Tahsildar Thirukazhukundram dated 19.7.2007 it is for the first respondent to pass appropriate orders based on the enquiry to be conducted by him pursuant to the impugned notice dated 13.11.2009. It is for the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him before the first respondent during the enquiry to be held by the said authority. Therefore the present writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court is devoid of merits and therefore it is liable to be dismissed.10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions.1. VISHWAS FOOTWEAR COMPANY LTD. Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANCHEEPURAM (2011 (5) CTC 94).2. S.VISWANATHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT (2011) 7 MLJ 1115).11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned notice dated 13.11.2009 issued by the first respondent. The second respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the third respondent dated 27.7.2007 considering the issues raised by the third respondent as well as the petitioner in the present writ petition.12. It is also made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the objections available to him under law including the grounds raised in the present writ petition. Thereafter it is for the second respondent to consider the rival claims of the petitioner as well as the third respondent and to pass appropriate orders thereon as per law. However it is made clear that it would be open to the second respondent to consider the issues raised by the parties concerned relating to his jurisdiction to hear the appeal dated 27.7.2007 filed by the third respondent as a preliminary issue keeping in view the provisions of Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act 1983 and the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.385 Revenue Department dated 17.8.2004. The second respondent shall pass appropriate orders as directed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the third respondent and the other parties concerned if any.The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.