The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's petition dated 01.10.2016 and the reminder representation dated 11.01.2017 for the sub-division of the properties and issue necessary individual separate pattas to the petitioner as well as to the first respondent in accordance with law.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has given representations dated 01.10.2016 and 11.01.2017 to the second respondent to issue separate patta in respect of three properties. Admittedly, the joint patta stands in the name of the petitioner and the first respondent. Now, the petitioner has given representations seeking for separate patta without division of the properties between the petitioner and the first respondent. The representations given to the second respondent, the Tahsildar, Aruppukottai Taluk, have not yet been considered, for the reason that he is not the competent authority to divide the properties between the petitioner and the first respondent.
3. The petitioner and the first respondent can get the properties divided among themselves by executing a partition deed or by filing a suit for partition. In the case on hand, when the three properties remained jointly in the name of the petitioner and the first respondent, the second respondent, Tahsildar is not the authority to divide the properties among the petitioner and the first respondent. Unless, the properties get divided by metes and bounds between the petitioner and the first respondent, the second respondent, Tahsildar cannot issue separate patta to them.
4. In this circumstance, the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted to the writ petitioner. However, I give liberty to the petitioner to get a partition deed executed with the first respondent or in the case of the first respondent nor agreeing for executing agreement of a partition deed. The petitioner is at liberty to file a suit for partition for other reliefs before the competent Civil Court.
5. With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes ah To The Tahsildar, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Aruppukkottai – 626 101.
02.08.2017 M.DURAISWAMY, J.
ah W.P.No.7664 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.8380 of 2017 02.08.2017
W.P.No.7664 of 2017
& W.M.P.No.8380 of 2017
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
At the instance of the petitioner-party-in-person, the matter has been listed today (17.08.2017) under the caption “for being mentioned”.
2. The petitioner appearing in person submitted that while dismissing the writ petition on 02.08.2017, this Court, in the first sentence of paragraph 2 and in the second sentence of paragraph 3 of the order, had observed that “It is the case of the petitioner that he has given representations dated 01.10.2016 and 11.01.2017 to the second respondent to issue separate patta in respect of three properties” and “In the case on hand, when the three
properties remained jointly in the name of the petitioner” respectively, however, actually in the representations, he has mentioned three items of properties, which includes 4 properties. Therefore, the said observation may be corrected in the order dated 02.08.2017.
3. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner, the Registry is directed to incorporate the following instead of existing words.
Ist sentence of Para 2: It is the case of the petitioner that he has given
representations dated 01.10.2016 and 11.01.2017 to the second respondent to issue separate patta in respect of three items of properties, which includes four properties.”
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
raa 2nd sentence of Para 3: “In the case on hand, when the three items of properties, which includes four properties, remained jointly in the name of the petitioner and the first respondent, the second respondent, Tahsildar is not the authority to divide the properties among the petitioner and the first respondent.”
4. He further submitted that in the last sentence of paragraph 4, the word “and” is missing.
5. Therefore, the last sentence of paragraph 4 should be read as “The petitioner is at liberty to file a suit for partition and for other reliefs before the competent Civil Court.”
6. In other aspects, the order dated 0208.2017 shall be remained unaltered.
17.08.2017 Note: The Registry is directed to issue fresh order copy.
raa
W.P.No.7664 of 2017