Judgment:
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :
01. 07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.(MD)No.1121 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 4 of 2013 S.Muthuramalingam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3.The Tahsildar, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. 4.M.Veerayi ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Pa.Mu.No.B4/3543/2011 dated 20.02.2012 and of the 3rd respondent in his consequential proceedings BDR.d2009/2286/1412/126/20-20 dated 30.03.2012 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to issue joint patta in favour of the petitioner and his brother and sister. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Vellaisamy ^For Respondents ... Mr.M.Rajarajan 1 to 3 Government Advocate For 4th Respondent ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for Mr.R.Senthil Kumar :ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Pa.Mu.No.B4/3543/2011 dated 20.02.2012, and of the 3rd respondent in his consequential proceedings BDR.d2009/2286/1412/126/20-20 dated 30.03.2012, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to issue joint patta in favour of the petitioner and his brother and sister.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent Veerayi is his sister. Petitioner's father Sethuraman purchased a land measuring to an extent of 39 cents in S.No.10/1B1 situated in Thuthikulam Village, Kirungakottai Group, Manamadurai Taluk, by a registered sale deed registered as document No.2719 of 1962. The said lands were purchased from one Ayyathurai @ Annavithevar, S/o. Chellaperumal. Petitioner's father had two sons and one daughter ie., the petitioner and his brother Urangaapuli and his sister Veerayi, the fourth respondent herein. The fourth respondent was given in marriage to one Mayalaghu in 1987. After the demise of his father, the petitioner and his brother are in possession and enjoyment of the property. Though the petitioner's father purchased the property in the year 1962, no mutation was carried out in the revenue records. The patta and other revenue records stood only in the name of the vendor of his father. While so, the fourth respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner, his wife and his brother Urangaapuli in O.S.No.79 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Manamadurai restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property. In the said suit, the fourth respondent has made a claim as if, the petitioner's father executed an unregistered settlement deed 08.09.1985. In the said suit, the fourth respondent has also obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.402 of 2012. The petitioner was completely shocked with regard to the false claim made by the fourth respondent herein. In fact, the petitioner's father died intestate and he has not executed any settlement deed as claimed by the fourth respondent. Further, more, the said settlement deed is non est in the eye of law, since the same is an unregistered settlement deed. The learned District Munsif, Manamadurai, after hearing the parties, dismissed the interim application. Aggrieved over the same, the fourth respondent herein filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.8 of 2012 and the same is pending on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai. While so, the petitioner came to know that behind his back, the fourth respondent has clandestinely approached the respondents 1 to 3 some time in the year 2010 and applied for modification in the patta, a sub-division in the survey number and mutation of the revenue records. The petitioner, immediately after coming to know of the same has objected to the mutation and has initiated appropriate proceedings before the first respondent. The first respondent held that the fourth respondent had valid title over the property and directed the third respondent to carry out the mutations. The third respondent pursuant to the above order has consequentially directed the Village Administrative Officer, Kirungakottai to carry out the mutations by his order dated 30.03.2012. Hence, aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The fourth respondent has filed a counter, stating that the subject land comprised in S.No.10/1B1 is the self acquired property of 4th respondent's father and he gifted the said property vide settlement deed dated 08.09.1985. The petitioner is fully aware of the settlement deed executed by his father. The petitioner and his another brother Urangapulli in order to drive her out of the property, executed a sale deed dated 24.06.2008, at the instance of one Muthuganapathy and Subramani. The said Muthuganapathy and Subramani are the legal heirs of the vendor of petitioner's/4th respondent's father. Hence, the 4th respondent filed a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.79 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Manamadurai against the petitioner and her another brother Urangaapuli and the petitioner's wife. According to the advise of her counsel in the locality, the fourth respondent approached the first respondent to transfer the patta in her name, because her father's name has been entered in the UDR itself. The writ petition is hit by latches. The fourth respondent is also taking steps to set aside the sale deed dated 22.06.2008. Thus, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. The third respondent has filed a counter inter-alia stating that the fourth respondent has filed an appeal before the 1st respondent for the mutation of the records in the UDR in Survey No.10/1 situated in Kirugakottai Revenue Village, Manamadurai Taluk. The first respondent after perusal of the documents, passed an order on 22.02.2012, after making proper enquiry. The first respondent District Revenue Officer, has passed an order since he is the competent authority as per the G.O.Ms.No.385 Revenue (Public-3) dated 17.08.2004. In the said order, Tahsildar, Manamadurai has been directed to change the village accounts and prepare Sub Division document as per order. Hence, the third respondent has passed the impugned order as per the order of District Revenue Officer.
5. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the property comprised in S.No.10/1B1, Thuthikulam Village is the self-earned property of petitioner's father. Though the property was purchased by the petitioner's father in the year 1962 from one Ayyathurai @ Annavithevar, during his life time, no mutation was carried out and the patta stands in the name of petitioner's father's vendor. Petitioner's father's vendor died intestate in the year 1990. On his death, the property devolved on all his legal heirs. While so, the petitioner's sister/4th respondent has approached the first respondent to make correction in the UDR patta based on the unregistered settlement deed, said to have been executed by the father of the petitioner on 08.09.1985. But, to the knowledge of the petitioner, no such settlement deed was executed. But the fourth respondent without issuing notice to the other legal heirs ordered for U.D.R. correction to enter the name of the fourth respondent in the revenue records. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the unregistered settlement deed is non est in the eye of law. Therefore, the first respondent ought to have directed the fourth respondent to approach the civil Court. But, without doing so, he has passed the impugned order, directing the third respondent to carry out the mutations and the third respondent has consequentially directed the Village Administrative Officer, Kirungakottai to carry out the mutations. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the father of fourth respondent conveyed the property to her by an unregistered settlement deed dated 08.09.1985. Subsequently, it was found that erroneously some other person's name was entered in the patta. Hence, the fourth respondent applied for correction of the U.D.R. Based on the documents produced by the fourth respondent, the first respondent directed the third respondent to carry out mutation. It is only an UDR correction and the first respondent is the competent authority to pass the said order. If the petitioner had any grievance over the above said settlement deed dated 08.09.1985, it is for him to approach the civil Court. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Keeping the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire records.
8. It is an admitted case of both the sides that the subject property is the self-earned property of petitioner's father Sethuraman. He purchased the same from one Ayyathurai @ Annavithever. Though he purchased the property in the year 1962, he has not taken any steps to carry out mutation in the records. Subsequently, the dispute arose between the fourth respondent and the petitioner. It is the case of the fourth respondent that Sethuraman had executed an unregistered settlement deed in favour of the fourth respondent and she approached the first respondent to make correction in the U.D.R. patta. When, other legal heirs are there, the District Revenue Officer, ought to have issued notice to them, before passing the impugned order. Whereas, he solely placing reliance upon the unregistered settlement deed dated 08.09.1985, and passed the impugned order. Therefore, in my considered opinion, when there is a disputed question of title, the first respondent is not entitled to pass the impugned order and he ought to have directed the fourth respondent to approach the civil court. Since, there is disputed questions of title, the impugned order passed by the first respondent, without issuing notice to the other legal heirs, is liable to be set aside. Consequentially, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is also liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 20.02.2012 and the impugned order of the third respondent dated 30.03.2012 are set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the request of the fourth respondent to make correction in the UDR patta, after issuing notice to the petitioner and his brother Urangaapuli and after hearing them, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If he comes to the conclusion that there is any disputed questions of title, he can direct the fourth respondent to approach the civil Court.
10. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed. To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3.The Tahsildar, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.