IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.06.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.493 OF 2009 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2009 1.Ponnusamy 2.Sengodan 3.Murugesan 4.Marimuthu ... Petitioners Versus 1.The District Revenue Officer Namakkal, Namakkal District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Tiruchengode, Namakkal District. 3.The Tahsildar Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. 4.S.Raja ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 15.02.2007 made in Na.Ka.No.25513/05/ (PTA 4/05) / O 1 passed by the 1st respondent herein confirming the order dated 04.04.2005 made in Ni.Mu.5605/04/E passed by the 2nd respondent reversing the order dated 12.07.1995 made in PTA No.344/6-II/95-96 passed by the 3rd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to remove the name of the 4th respondent in patta No.365 relating to S.F.No.360/4 and 360/10, Karuveppampatti Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. For Petitioners : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents 1&3 : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan Government Advocate For Respondent 4 : Mr.P.Jagadeesan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioners states that one Mr.Muthusamy Gounder owned lands in S.No.360/4 measuring 0.13.5 Ares and in S.No.360/10 measuring 0.17.0 Ares in Karuveppampatti, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, which was his ancestral property. The fourth respondent in the present writ petition purchased the said property from the said Mr.Muthusamy Gounder and his legal heirs on 25.10.2002 under the registered sale deed No.3113/2002 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tiruchengode. The patta in respect of S.No.360/4 was issued in the name of Mr.Muthusamy Gounder under patta No.365. 2.It seems that the father of the first and second petitioners by name Mr.Chettiya Gounder and the father of the third and fourth petitioners by name Mr.Ponnali Gounder purchased property in S.No.360/4 on 09.03.1967 from the legal heirs of one Mr.Ramasamy. Mr.Chettiya Gounder and Mr.Ponnali Gounder also purchased other properties. In the year 1995, the said Mr.Chettiya Gounder and Mr.Ponnali Gounder requested the third respondent to include their names in the patta relating to the land in S.No.360/4 and other lands, along with the person on whose name the patta stands. The controversy is relating to the land in S.No.360/4 only. The patta for the land in S.No.360/4 stood in the name of Mr.Muthusamy Gounder, who sold the land to the fourth respondent in the year 2002. 3.Based on the representation of Mr.Chettiya Gounder and Mr.Ponnali Gounder, the third respondent passed an order dated 12.07.1995 adding the names of Mr.Chettiya Gounder and Mr.Ponnali Gounder along with Mr.Muthusamy Gounder. After purchasing the land in S.No.360/4 in the year 2002, as stated above, the fourth respondent found that the names of Mr.Chettiya Gounder and Mr.Ponnali Gounder were added, while he was in exclusive possession of the land in S.No.360/4. 4.Hence, the fourth respondent made a representation dated 02.08.2004 to the second respondent to delete the names of Mr.Chettiya Gounder and Mr.Ponnali Gounder in the patta relating to the land in S.No.360/4. After conducting an enquiry, the second respondent passed an order dated 04.04.2005 deleting the names of Mr.Chettiya Gounder and Mr.Ponnali Gounder in the patta book relating to S.No.360/4. 5.Against the said order dated 04.04.2005 of the second respondent, the petitioners filed an appeal dated 03.07.2005 before the first respondent. The first respondent rejected the appeal on 15.02.2007 and confirmed the order dated 04.04.2005 of the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.The petitioners have now filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 15.02.2007 of the first respondent, confirming the order dated 04.04.2005 of the second respondent. 7.Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent has filed counter affidavit. 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first and second respondents have gone into the title of the property in favour of the fourth respondent, for which, they do not have jurisdiction. In this regard, the learned counsel relies on the decision of this Court in CHOCKKAPPAN AND TWO OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 2004 (1) CTC 136. 9.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the names of the fathers of the petitioners viz., Mr.Chettiya Gounder and Mr.Ponnali Gounder, were included in the year 1995 along with Mr.Muthusamy Gounder, who was the vendor of the land in S.No.360/4. Before adding the names of the fathers of the petitioners, the third respondent did not hear Mr.Muthusamy Gounder, who sold the lands to the fourth respondent. These facts are not in dispute. In the said circumstances, the second respondent deleted the names of Mr.Chettiya Gounder and Mr.Ponnali Gounder, the fathers of the petitioners herein. 10.I have gone through the orders impugned in the writ petition. In my considered view, neither the second respondent nor the first respondent have gone into the title. The respondents 1 and 2 have recorded that the fourth respondent has made an application on 02.08.2004, after the purchase of land from Mr.Muthusamy Gounder in October 2002. This could not preclude the petitioners from questioning the title of the fourth respondent by approaching the proper Civil Court. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the facts of this case. In fact, the said judgment supports the case of the fourth respondent. In the said judgment, the petitioners were granted patta in the year 1984. However, without hearing the petitioners, the third respondent name was included in the patta, which was questioned by the petitioners before the concerned authorities. However, their appeal before the authorities were not successful. In the said circumstances, this Court held that when the name of the third respondent in the said case was added, the petitioners were not heard. In those circumstances, this Court interfered with the orders of the authorities. In the said judgment, it is made clear that the parties could approach the competent Civil Court to establish their title. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hence, the said judgment is not helpful to the petitioners in the present writ petition. 11.In these circumstances, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners could approach the competent civil Court, if they are so advised to establish their title. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. TK To 1. The District Revenue Officer Namakkal, Namakkal District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Tiruchengode, Namakkal District. 3. The Tahsildar Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. + 1 CC TO the Mr.N.Manoharan, Advocate Sr No.44160 + 1 CC TO the Mr.P.Jagadeesan, Advocate Sr No.44050 + 1 CC TO the Govt., Pleader Sr No.44439 W.P.NO.493 OF 2009 MS (CO) RH (5.7.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/