1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.9183 of 2011 R.Srinivasa Perumalsamy Naicker ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Kovilpatti Tuticorin District 2. The Thasildhar Kovilpatti Taluk Tuticorin District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 08.07.2010 which is forwarded by the first respondent and issue patta to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.Anandharaj Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a Mandamus directing the Thasildhar, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin District, the second respondent herein, to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 08.07.2010. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property in S.No.146/1A in Ward No.1, Idaiseval Panchayat. He has put up a construction therein, which is assessed by the Panchayat. A separate Door number is also given. On the eastern side of the property, there is a Government natham land, which is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer interfered with the possession of the adjoining property in Natham Survey No. 140. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.S.No. 4 of 1994, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, for a permanent injunction and that, the same was decreed was merits. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the first respondent and the District Collector, filed an appeal along with a condonation petition in I.A.No. 143 of 1998 before the Sub-Court, Kovilpatti and that the same was dismissed. A Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No. 2179 of 2000 was filed while allowing the Civil Revision Petition, this Court directed to pay cost. As cost was not paid, the decree has become final. In such circumstances, the petitioner has made a representation, dated 25.05.2010, requesting for issuance of patta to the District Collector. No action has been taken. Therefore, another petition, dated 08.07.2010, was given to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, which has been forwarded to the Tasildhar, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin District, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 second respondent herein. As no orders have been passed, the petitioner has sought for a Mandamus to dispose of the representation, dated 08.07.2010. 4. According to the petitioner, the property which is now claimed in his possession and enjoyment is for Natham Survey No. 140, which cannot be said to be an agricultural property even as per the averments of the writ petitioner. Patta Pass Book Act, is applicable only to the holders of agricultural lands. No material have been placed before this Court to substantiate that the petitioner has a right to seek for issuance of patta except the civil proceeding stated supra. Merely because the petitioner has obtained a decree for permanent injunction, that would not automatically confer a right on the petitioner to seek for patta, as no declaratory decree has been granted. 5. In view of the above, the direction sought for cannot be granted. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. 2. The Thasildhar, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin District. +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.27901 Vsg SR : 25.08.2011 : 2p/4c W.P.(MD).No.9183 of 2011 16.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/