1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.3045 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 2 & 3 of 2011 1. Sheik Dawood 2. M.Azeez Kani 3. M.Faretha Begam : Petitioners Vs 1. The District Collector Madurai District, Madurai 2. The District Revenue Officer Madurai District Collectorate, Madurai 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Madurai Division Collectorate, Madurai 4. The Tahsildar Madurai North Taluk Collectorate, Madurai 5. A.Liyakath Ali 6. Waheetha Begam 7. A.Syed Kani 8. A.Raja Mohamed 9. A.Subaidha Begam 10. C.T.Chockalingam 11. C.T.Arunachalam 12. C.T.Narayanan 13. P.L.Lakkumanan 14. A.N.Lakkumanan : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the fourth respondent issuance of the patta in Patta No. 1392 dated nil in favour of the respondents No. 5 to 9 to the property bearing Old Survey No.220/10 and new Survey No. 72/10 to the total extent of 70 cents situated at Vandiyoor Village II Bit, Madurai North Taluk and the consequential proceedings of the issuance of the Patta in Patta No. 1469 dated 20.10.2009 in favour of the respondents No. 10 to 14 by the fourth respondent and quash the same and direct the fourth respondent to issue the Patta for the petitioner's property of 35 cents based on the deed of partition executed on 24.09.1956. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 For petitioner : Mr.K.Kannan For RR 1 to 4 : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader ForRR 5 to 14 : No appearance O R D E R According to the petitioner, as per the deed of partition, out of 1.5 Acres of land, 35 cents of land was given to the petitioner's paternal uncle, by name, Naina Mohammed and remaining 70 cents of land have to be divided by his father, namely, Maideen Kani and his paternal uncle, by name, Sikkandar Rowther equally. Subsequent to the partition, the properties were divided and 35 cents of land have been possessed and enjoyed by Abdul Razak Kani as his father, Sikkandar Rowther died. 2. According to him, the patta stood in the name of his father, namely, Maideen Kani, to an extent of 70 cents along with the name of the father of the respondents 5 to 9 jointly and after the death of his father in the year 1966 leaving the petitioner and two other petitioners, as legal representatives, the patta was transferred and the patta was issued in his name and his brother and sister and in the name of Abdul Razak Kani jointly, on 21.02.2008 and thereafter, they have been possessing the land to an extent of 35 cents and remaining 35 cents have been enjoyed by the respondents 5 to 9. Subsequently, when they wanted a separate patta, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the order to cancel the name of the joint patta and revert it back to the original owner, by an order, dated 17.03.2008, but instead of giving separate patta, the Tahsildar now has passed an order granting patta in the name of the respondents 5 to 9 and thereafter, they sold the property and they have also changed the name of the subsequent purchaser. This transfer of patta by the authority, namely, Tahsildar, is a violation of the recommendation of the Revenue Divisional Officer, by his proceedings, dated 17.03.2008. Hence, he made a representation to the second respondent, on 13.05.2010, but the said representation was not considered. Therefore, he has come forward with this Petition seeking for cancellation of the Patta in the name of the subsequent purchaser and allot patta in his name. 3. At the time of admission, it is very clearly pointed out that the grievance of the petitioner is only in respect of the transfer of patta made in the subsequent purchaser's name as well as in the joint name. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would only contend that the grievance of the petitioner is that the instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 17.03.2008, has not been followed and the impugned order is passed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4. Unfortunately, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal as against the impugned order, namely, the grant of patta even though if it is against the instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer. It has become necessary for the petitioner to prefer an appeal, but without preferring an appeal, the petitioner is merely making a representation and that too not before the concerned authority , hence the writ is not maintainable. 5. It is suffice to direct that it is always open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, if he is still aggrieved, against the grant of patta. Further in this Writ Petition, the subsequent purchaser also is not a party and therefore, in their absence, no order could be passed. Hence, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. 6. With the above said observation, the Writ Petition is closed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector Madurai District,Madurai 2. The District Revenue Officer Madurai District Collectorate, Madurai 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Madurai Division Collectorate Madurai 4. The Tahsildar Madurai North Taluk Collectorate, Madurai +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 8482 W.P.(MD).No.3045 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 2 & 3 of 2011 28.03.2011 vsg/SMA/21.4.2011/6C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/