1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 07.03.2019

Delivered on : 22.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

W.P.[MD]Nos.11279 of 2015 and 22496 of 2018

W.P.[MD]No.11279 of 2015:

Shanmugavel : Petitioner

Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.

2.Mr.Chandran,
The Deputy Tahsildar,
Ambasamudram Taluk,
Ambasamudram,
Tirunelveli District. : Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing
the first respondent to take action and departmental proceedings
against the second respondent based on the petitioner's
representation dated 18.08.2014.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 2

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvan

For Respondents : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi,
Special Government Pleader
*********
W.P.[MD]No.22496 of 2018:

Ravikumar : Petitioner

Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.

2.The Sub Collector,

Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District. : Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing
the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation
dated 17.08.2018 and to pass orders within a time stipulated by
this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar

For Respondents : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi,
Special Government Pleader
******

http://www.judis.nic.in
 3

COMMON ORDER
***********

W.P.(MD)No.11279 of 2015:

The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the first

respondent to take action and departmental proceedings against

the second respondent based on his representation dated

18.08.2014.

2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is as follows:

(i) The land and rice mill building in Survey No.293/1A

bearing Door No.23D situated at Melaseval Village,

Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District belongs to one P.Selva

Ganapathy. The said property was purchased by the petitioner's

brother by name Muppidathy Thevar in the name of his wife

Vasanthi through a registered sale deed dated 18.10.2007. Since

she purchased the said property along with other property of house

site situated at Narasinganallur Village, the sale deed was

registered in the Pettai Sub Registrar's Office vide Document No.

68/2008 and thereafter, the Melaseval rice mill building was

registered at Cheranmahadevi Sub-Registrar's office. Since his

brother is residing at Mumbai, the petitioner is maintaining the

said property.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 4

(ii) Seeking to change the patta in respect of the property

in the name of Vasanthi, the petitioner applied before the first

respondent on 26.08.2010, for which, the first respondent replied

that the said petition was forwarded to the Sub-Collector,

Cheranmahadevi for taking steps. When the petitioner contacted

the Sub Collector's office, it was informed that the same was

forwarded to the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ambasamudram and

thereafter, to the second respondent, who was in-charge at that

time.

(iii) When the petitioner approached the second

respondent, he demanded Rs.10,000/- for expenses, which he has

not paid initially and subsequently paid and on payment, the

second respondent provided Natham Nilavari Thitta Thooya

Adangal and order copy for the same on 22.12.2010.

(iv) The vendor of the petitioner's brother's wife, in order

to grab the property already sold, created sale agreement in favour

of one Pandi and three others and filed a suit before the Sub Court,

Ambasamudram. In the said suit, all of them appeared and

produced all the documents including the patta granted by the

http://www.judis.nic.in
 5

second respondent. The said Pandi gave a complaint before the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, stating that the patta

is forged one, based on which, a case was registered by the

Ambasamudram Police Station in Crime No.182 of 2014 arraying

all of them including the second respondent as accused. Thereafter,

on enquiry, it came to know that the second respondent created

forged patta and gave a forged order to the petitioner. The second

respondent, in his order, stated that the new survey number for the

petitioner S.No.293/1A is 775 and assigned patta No.818 for the

same. But, whereas, as per the revenue records, patta No.818

pertaining to S.No.775 belongs to some other person. Knowing full

well about the patta belonging to some other person, with a view to

grab money, the second respondent issued a forged patta to the

petitioner's brother's wife.

(v) Even after filing of FIR against the second respondent,

the first respondent has not initiated any departmental proceedings

against him. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation dated

18.08.2014 to the first respondent seeking departmental action

against the second respondent. But, no fruitful result is

forthcoming till date. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present

Writ Petition for the reliefs as stated above.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 6

3. Though the Writ Petition is of the year 2015, so far, no

counter-affidavit is forthcoming from the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

originally the property in question was purchased by the

petitioner's brother and thereafter, it was transferred in the name

of his sister-in-law. The petitioner also got patta for the said

property. However, when the vendor of the petitioner's brother's

wife took steps to sell the very same property to others and created

a sale agreement and the suit was initiated, the petitioner came to

know about the issuance of fraudulent patta by the second

respondent. The second respondent for want of money created a

forged patta and also issued order to that effect. There is no

necessity for the petitioner to create patta for the said property

after purchasing the same vide sale deed. Despite giving

representation to take departmental action against the second

respondent, the first respondent has not taken any action so far.

Therefore, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions.

W.P.(MD)No.22496 of 2018:

5. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the first

respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated

17.08.2018.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 7

6. The property to an extent of 2 acres 59 cents in Ayan

Punja Survey No.1748/1 North Valliyoor Village, Radhapuram

Taluk, Tirunelveli District belongs to the petitioner and his brother

by name Ramesh, as per registered sale deed bearing No.

1150/2002, dated 16.07.2002. They purchased the property from

one Ganapathy, Solagar, through his power agent namely

Muthukrishnan. The total extent of Survey No.1748/1 is 2.78.5

Hectare. the Tashildar, Radhapuram issued patta No.1074. The

patta was one of joint patta. When there was interference in the

possession of the petitioner by one Mani and 5 others, he came to

know about the issuance of forged patta and also the fact that a

separate patta was issued in favour of the said Mani. Hence, he

lodged a complaint before the District Crime Branch (Anti Land

Grabbing Special Cell), Tirunelveli, to register a case as against the

said Mani and five others. However, the case in Crime No.26 of

2017 was registered on the directions of the Special Court for Land

Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.1284 of 2017.

7. Alleging that the Tahsildar, Radhapuram and the Village

Administrative Officer, without making any local inspection, issued

patta in favour of Mani and others, the petitioner sent a

http://www.judis.nic.in
 8

representation to the second respondent on 01.02.2018 and finally,

on 17.08.2018 to take action against the persons, who indulged in

issuance of bogus patta. Since no action was taken so far, he is

constrained to approach this Court by filing the present Writ

Petition.

8. Though the Writ Petition is of the year 2018, till date,

no counter-affidavit is forthcoming on the side of the respondents.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner and his brother purchased the property having an extent

of 2 Acres 59 Cents in Survey No.1748/1 vide registered sale deed

dated 16.07.2002 from one Ganapathy, Solagar through his power

agent viz., Muthukrishnan. However, joint pattas were issued for

13 persons including the petitioner and his brother. While so, one

Mani and five others interfered with his possession and on enquiry,

it reveals that bogus patta was issued and again, a separate patta

was issued in favour of the said Mani. It is further contended that

initially the complaint given by the petitioner was not given effect

and thereafter, pursuant to the direction of the Trial Court, a case

was registered in Crime No.26 of 2017. Even then, no action is

taken against the officials concerned. When a person applied for

http://www.judis.nic.in
 9

issuance of patta, it is the duty of the concerned officials to conduct

local inspection in the property in question, conduct an enquiry and

thereafter, proceed with the issuance of patta in the manner known

to law, however, in the case on hand, the officials concerned,

without doing anything, issued bogus patta, which causes undue

hardship to the petitioner. Though a representation was given in

this regard, the same is also ended in vain. Therefore, he prays for

appropriate directions.

10. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing

for the respondents in both the Writ Petitions, on instructions,

would fairly submit that appropriate action would be taken against

the erring officials for the lapses committed.

11. I have considered the submissions made on either side

and perused the materials available on record carefully.

12. The issue centering around both the Writ Petitions

relates to the issuance of bogus pattas without proper inspection

and enquiry.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 10

13. Admittedly, both the petitioners purchased the

property vide registered sale deeds and also got pattas in their

favour. When third parties interfered, they came to know about the

issuance of bogus pattas by the officials concerned. The petitioners

made complaints against the concerned, but, they have been made

to run from pillar to post to get their grievances redressed. Even

then, the representations given to take action against the officials

concerned were also not yet considered from 2015 and 2018

respectively, resulting in filing of the present Writ Petitions.

14. In a matter of this nature, when a person applied for

issuance of patta, a duty is cast upon the concerned officials to

inspect the property for which the patta is applied and after

conducting thorough enquiry, patta can be issued. But, in the cases

at hand, without conducting any enquiry and without conducting

local inspection in the properties in question, pattas were issued to

the persons without verifying as to who is the real owner.

15. It is not the one case relating to issuance of patta,

many cases arising out of bogus pattas are pending without seeing

the light of the day. The failure on the part of the concerned

http://www.judis.nic.in
 11

officials in not making proper inspection while issuing patta made

the innocent people to run from pillar to post seeking justice

delivery system either knocking the doors of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the authorities

concerned. However, they do not get any justice forthwith.

16. In view of the above stated position, this case should

be an eye opener to the officials concerned who involved in issuing

such bogus pattas. Therefore, while concluding the cases, I would

like to issue some guidelines to the Government.

17. The Government should examine the issue in detail

and collect all the complaints pending disposal on same line. If any

of the complaints with proper documents establish the crime of

issuing bogus pattas, immediate action against the concerned

officials be taken by placing under suspension, following the

departmental proceedings. Necessary circular, in this regard,

should also be issued by all the District Collectors, so as to ensure

that such kind of issuance of bogus pattas does not repeat in

future, to the concerned departments. It is also made clear that if

any bogus patta is issued, necessary action must be taken against

the erring officials.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 12

18. Now, coming to the cases at hand, in view of the

submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents, the first respondent herein is

directed to conduct proper enquiry on the basis of the

representations made by the petitioners dated 18.08.2014 and

17.08.2018 respectively and on enquiry, it reveals that if any lapses

is committed, appropriate action be taken against the erring

officials on merits and in accordance with law. Such an exercise

shall be carried out, within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

19. The Writ Petitions stand disposed of in the above

terms. No costs.

20. Post the Writ Petitions on 03.07.2019 'for reporting

compliance'.

22.03.2019

Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
SML

http://www.judis.nic.in
 13

To

1.The District Collector,

Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.

2.Mr.Chandran,
The Deputy Tahsildar,
Ambasamudram Taluk,
Ambasamudram,
Tirunelveli District.

3.The Sub Collector,

Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 14

R.MAHADEVAN, J

SML

Common Order made in

W.P.[MD]Nos.11279 of 2015 and 22496 of 2018

Delivered on:
22.03.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in