1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 18.11.2011 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No: 2913 of 2011 and M.P(md).No.3 of 2011 1.S.Gopalsamy 2.S.Boopathi 3.R.Mohan Rangaraj 4.R.Sathyanarayanan .. Petitioners -Vs- 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur. 2.The Tahsildar, Aravakurichi,Karur District. 3.K.Vasudevan 4.K.Janaki 5.K.Lakshmanan .. Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 03.02.2011 vide patta No.6874 in so far as incorporating the name of 5th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 herein to issue the joint patta in favour of the petitioners in respect of S.Nos.220 & 221 at Punnam village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Trichy District, within a reasonable time. For Petitioners:Mr.R.Sivakumar for Mr.B.Muruganandam For Respondents:Mr.M.Alaguthevan,Special Government Pleader for RR-1 & 2 Mr.V.Janakiramulu for R-5 ORDER The petitioners have come up with the above writ petition challenging the inclusion of the names of the respondents 3 to 5 herein in patta Nos.6705 and 6874 issued in respect of the lands in S.Nos.220 and 221, Punnam Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. 2.Heard Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.M.Alaguthevan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.Janakiramulu, for the 5th respondent. Though the respondents 3 and 4 have already been served with notice, they have not entered appearance, since they have sold the property to the 5th respondent. 3.The property in question admittedly belonged originally to one Mr.Ramasamy. He had two sons viz., Seshachala and Krishnasamy. The said Krishnasamy appears to have sold his share to Seshachala and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 after the demise of Seshachala, his three sons had mutation effected in the Revenue Records. 4.Though a suit for partition was later filed by the legal heirs of Krishnasamy in O.S.No.363 of 1986, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.11.1990. In fact, one of the prayers made in the said suit was to set aside the sale made by Krishnasamy in favour of his brother Seshachala. 5.In view of the dismissal of the above suit and the failure of Krishnasamy's heirs to pursue the matter any further, the sale in favour of Seshachala and the inheritance of the property by his three sons attained finality. 6.However, the respondents 3 and 4 herein who are the legal heirs of Krishnasamy got their names included in the patta. Consequently, the petitioners moved the appellate authority namely the first respondent. The first respondent passed an order on 10.06.2009 directing the 2nd respondent to delete the names of the respondents 3 and 4. After having passed the said order on 10.06.2009, the first respondent came to pass another order suo motu without notice to the petitioners on 30.09.2009. 7.The petitioners challenged the said order in W.P.No.12195 of 2009. The same was allowed by this Court by an order dated 25.02.2010, setting aside the 2nd order and directing the second respondent to delete the names of respondents 3 and 4 from the patta. 8.Without straight away implementing the order of this Court in the said writ petition, the first respondent again conducted an enquiry and passed a fresh order dated 23.04.2010 directing the second respondent to delete the names of the respondents 3 and 4. But despite the orders of this Court and despite the order of the first respondent, the second respondent again issued the impugned pattas not only including the names of the respondents 3 and 4, but also including the name of the 5th respondent, who purchased the property subsequently from respondents 3 and 4. 9.The above sequence of events show that the second respondent has acted with utter disregard for the orders of his superior as well as the order of this Court. Therefore, I directed the learned Special Government Pleader to produce the files and called upon the second respondent to be present in Court. Accordingly, the second respondent was present on 17.11.2011 and the files were produced. But it appears that the Tahsildar, who issued the impugned patta has been transferred and a new officer has taken charge. Therefore the circumstances under which the previous incumbent in the office of the second respondent acted in this fashion is not clearly borne out of the records. However, the fact remains that the petitioners have obtained an order from this Court in the previous writ petition and atleast two orders of the first respondent, directing the deletion of names of the respondents 3 and 4. Therefore this writ petition is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 allowed directing the second respondent to delete the names of the respondents 3 to 5 and issue a fresh patta in favour of the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent shall also ensure that all entries in all revenue records shall also be simultaneously amended, to be in tune with this order. Consequently, connected M.P.No.3 of 2011 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur. 2.The Tahsildar, Aravakurichi, Karur District. +1cc to Mr.B.Muruganandam, Advocate, Sr.No.40489 +1cc to Mr.V.Janakiramulu, Advocate, Sr.No.40549 W.P.(MD)No.2913 of 2011 18.11.2011 vs SMA/24.11.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/