Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Singaram vs The Tahsildar

Madras High Court|14 February, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the lands comprised in Survey No.2/1A and 2/1D through four different sale deeds executed by one Pappa and her sons namely, Muthukkannu, Singaram and Chinnadurai. Subsequently, the said Pappa through her power agent had sold the petitioner's property to the second respondent on 16.12.2008, based on which, the second respondent had also obtained Patta No.1557 in her name. In the meantime, the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.27 of 2009, before the learned District Munsif, Pudukkottai, to declare the sale deed dated 16.12.2008 as non-est in law. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner, on 21.06.2010 and the same has become final. Hence, the petitioner had made a request for issuance of a patta in his name through two applications dated 14.09.2012 and 22.09.2012. According to the petitioner the said applications are still pending.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent. Although her name is printed in the cause list, the second respondent did not appear in person or through an advocate.
3. Whenever an application is made seeking for issuance of patta, the first respondent cannot keep it pending indefinitely, but is bound to consider the same on its own merits and pass orders in accordance with law. Since the application was made wayback in 2012, it will be appropriate to direct the petitioner to make a fresh application to the first respondent for consideration.
4. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a fresh application seeking for issuance of patta in his name and on receipt of the same, the first respondent shall consider it on its own merits and in the light of the decree passed in O.S..No.278 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Pudukkottai and pass orders after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as the second respondent. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. With the above observation, this writ petition is allowed. No Costs.
To The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pudukkottai. .
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Singaram vs The Tahsildar

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
14 February, 2017