1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD).No.381 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 A.N.Ismail ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi Revenue Division, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Tahsildar, Kadaladi Taluk Office, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District. 4.Chendur Pandian ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Mu.Mu.(A4)/4479/2009 dated 06.01.2010 and direct 2nd and 3rd respondents to issue patta in the name of the petitioner herein in the lands in Natham S.No.479/15A (Old Natham S.No.187/1A3) at Sayalkudi Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. For petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathisankar For respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, 1 to 3 Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 06.01.2010 on the file of the second respondent, whereby and whereunder a direction was issued to him to take steps to change the survey number of his property by executing a rectification deed. 2.The petitioner is stated to be the registered owner of the property in Survey No.187/1A3 situated at Sayalkudi Village in the District of Ramanathapuram. The petitioner has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.241 of 1995 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathur, against his neighbour, as there was an attempt made to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 encroach into his property. The said suit was one for declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. The suit was decreed. The appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree in A.S.No.75 of 2004 was dismissed as per judgment and decree dated 21.06.2007. Therefore, the decree has become final. 2.1.The petitioner has filed an application before the executing Court to execute the decree. He has also filed an application to amend the survey number as 479/15A instead of 187/1A3. The said application is now pending before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathur. 2.2.While the matters stood thus, the respondent in the execution petition executed a sale deed in favour of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent in turn made an application before the authority to issue patta. The said application was allowed and patta was issued to him. The fourth respondent appears to have obtained an order to subdivide the Survey No.187/1A3 and he was allotted the new subdivision No.479/15A. According to the petitioner, after obtaining patta, the fourth respondent made an attempt to interfere with his possession. This made the petitioner to file an application before the second respondent to cancel the order issued to the fourth respondent. The second respondent advised the petitioner to take steps to rectify his document and the said order is challenged in this writ petition. 3.The fourth respondent in his counter affidavit disputed the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. According to the fourth respondent, the property of the petitioner is in Survey No.187/1A3 and it was classified as Rayadwari Punja land. His property is situated in new Survey No.479/15A corresponding to old New Survey No.187/3 and it was classified as Natham. Therefore, both the properties are different. 4.The petitioner claims ownership and possession on the basis of his document dated 12.05.1988. According to the petitioner, he obtained a decree of declaration in O.S.No.241 of 1995. The said decree was confirmed in A.S.No.75 of 2004. Therefore, he relies on the judgment and decree of the civil Court in support of his claim for ownership and possession. The decree was one for declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. Therefore, necessarily the petitioner has to get the property from the party in possession through the executing Court. 5.The petitioner has already filed an execution petition before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathur. He has also filed an application for amendment of the survey number. Therefore, these are all matters to be decided by the executing Court. 6.There is no question of issuing patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property in Survey No.479/15A corresponding to Survey No.187/1A3 during the pendency of the execution petition. The petitioner has to obey the orders to be passed by the executing Court. The question of issuing patta would arise only after obtaining the property through executing Court. The direction issued by the second respondent was only to rectify the survey number by a rectification deed. Since the second respondent has not decided the issue either against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 petitioner or against the fourth respondent, no interference is called for in the order impugned in the writ petition. It is open to the petitioner to approach the authorities, after taking delivery through the executing Court. 7.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. gcg Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathur. 2.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi Revenue Division, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Tahsildar, Kadaladi Taluk Office, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District. +1 cc to Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathy, Advocate SR.No.5045. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.4947. W.P.(MD).No.381 of 2011 Dated:07.02.2011 3P/7C RPB 23.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/