1. The petitioners have approached this Court contending that they are residents of Magalingam Nagar Village, Elavoor, Thiruvallur District. The petitioner in W.P.No.7968 of 2010 is having agricultural land to an extent of 1 acre 20 cents comprised in Survey No.336/4B at Magalingam Nagar and the petitioner in W.P.No.7969 of 2010 is having agricultural land to an extent of 1 acre 80 cents comprised in Survey No.1276/1B at Magalingam Nagar. Adjacent to their properties, there are 11 acres 87 cents comprised in Survey Numbers as follows:-
S.No. Surevey No. Extent
1. 1281/1M 1 Acre 12 cents
2. 1281/1S 1 Acre 02 cents
3. 1281/1F 0 Acre 96 cents
4. 1281/1G 0 Acre 98 cents
5. 1281/1C 0 Acre 97 cents
6. 1281/1H 0 Acre 97 cents
7. 1281/1I 0 Acre 98 cents
8. 1281/1J 0 Acre 96 cents
9. 1281/1D 0 Acre 98 cents
10. 1281/1E 1 Acre 00 cents
11. 1281/1K 0 Acre 97 cents
12. 1281/1L 0 Acre 96 cents
---------------------
Total extent 11 Acres 87 cents
---------------------
According to the petitioners, the said lands are being used for agricultural usage and as grazing lands and they are described as Anathinam poramboke Land and it is meant for common use of Villagers.
2. When things stand so, the newly impleaded respondents namely, respondents 4 to 7 prevented the villages from using the lands contending that they purchased the said lands. On verification it is found that prior to 1980, the said lands were described at "Anathinam poramboke" and during the period of issuance of UDR patta some malpractices were committed by third parties and UDR Patta in respect of the above 11 Acres 87 cents were issued in the name of third parties who did not have any right over the lands.
3. The petitioners further submit that the pattas were found to be transferred in respect of the above said property in the name of the newly impleaded respondents namely, respondents 4 to 7. Pointing out the illegality, a representation dated 17.09.2009 was given to the notice of the 2nd respondent, to cancel the UDR Patta after conducting necessary enquiry.
4. Mr.T.P.Sekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that originally the lands were classified as "Anathinam poramboke" and in support of which the learned counsel relied upon the communication dated 25.03.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent/ the Tahsildar, that the lands comprised in Survey No.1281 before issuance of UDR Patta was classified as Punja Anathinam and a copy of the Adangal was also filed by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel further brought to the notice of this Court, the communication dated 24.11.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent states that in Survey No.1281-1M (Magalingam Nagar Village) Government Primary School is functioning right from 1976 onwards and when that is the position, the UDR Patta in respect of the above properties should not have been transferred in the name of the third parties.
6. Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3, after perusing the communication dated 25.03.2010, submits that the 3rd respondent by communication stated that the lands comprised in Survey No.1281-1m situated at Magalingam Nagar, Elavoor Panchayat, was classified as Punja Anathinam before UDR classification.
7. Even though, notices were sent to respondents 4 to 7 and affidavit of service was filed and their names are printed in the cause list, no one appeared on the behalf of respondents 4 to 7. Therefore, this Court proceeds to decide the matter on merit as per the records available.
8. A perusal of the documents filed would go to show that the properties comprised in Survey Numbers to an extent of 11 Acres 87 cents were classified as " Punja Anathinam" before issuance of UDR Patta. While issuing UDR Patta, the properties were shown to be belonging to some third parties. There is every reason to believe that the UDR Pattas were issued by malpractice. Respondents 4 to 7 are said to be the subsequent purchasers on whose name the patta stands in respect of the lands.
9. In this case, it is seen that the third parties who sold the properties to respondents 4 to 7 did not have any title/right over the above said properties except UDR Patta. Respondents 4 to 7 should have appeared before this Court and canvassed their cases as to how they acquired patta in their name. Respondents 4 to 7 chose to remain unrepresented before this Court.
10. In the representation, the petitioners referred in O.S.No.97 of 2006 said to have been filed by respondents 4 to 7 against third parties and obtained a decree of declaration and therefore, this Court called for the records in O.S.No.97 of 2006.
11. A perusal of the records would show that the Suit was initiated by the respondents 4 to 7 against one Dharani, Valliammal, N.Ganesan and C.Kasi for themselves and on behalf of the entire residents of Magalingam Nagar, Elavoor. First of all, this Court is unable to understand as to how the Suit is maintainable describing Dharani and three others (defendants) as "Dharani, Valliammal, N.Ganesan and C.Kasi for themselves and on behalf of the entire residents of Magalingam Nagar, Elavoor" in the cause title. The properties which were shown in the schedule of the plaint are the properties which are subject matter of these Writ Petitions. Except certain documents which are of the years 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005, no document prior to 1980 was filed by the respondents 4 to 7 before the Trial Court to derive title. Proper Court fee was not paid in O.S.No.97 of 2006, based on the value of the properties especially when the suit is for declaration of title over 11 acres 87 cents. Therefore, the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.97 of 2006 suffers on many grounds.
12. One another important aspect is that the records produced by the learned Government Advocate shows that in the lands comprised in S.No.1281-1m (Magalingam Nagar Village), Government Primary School has been functioning right from 1976 onwards, till date. In respect of the said land also UDR patta was given to third parties and based on the strength of UDR patta, respondents 4 to 7 seemed to have purchased the property. That only proves that malpractices were done while issuing UDR patta.
13. Apart from that, the petitioners already gave a representation on 17.09.2009 to the 2nd respondent seeking suo motu revision power under Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act to review the order of the Tahsildar, who granted UDR Patta. It is crystal clear from the records that malpractices have been committed by third parties to usurp " Punja Anathinam" which are meant for common usage of the Villagers.
14. Therefore, this Court is inclined to direct the 2nd respondent to exercise his power under Section 13 of Patta Passbook Act to review the order of Tahsildar, after following due process of law, namely, after issuance of notice to the concerned parties. While deciding the issue, the concerned authority is directed to consider the evidence independently uninfluenced by the decree and judgment obtained by the respondents 4 to 7 in O.S.No.97 of 2006 granted by the District Munsif, Ponneri as the said decree is found to suffer on many grounds. If it is found by the 2nd respondent that the UDR Patta has been issued by malpractice, it goes without saying that the 2nd respondent is required to take appropriate action against the officials, who issued UDR Patta after following due process of law.
15. The aforesaid exercise is directed to be done within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.