The challenge is to the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 26.02.2010 and the brief facts which laid to the said order as follows:
2.The property in dispute belongs to one Mohamed Mahumoothu. The legal representatives of the said Mohamed Mahumoothu had sold the property to the petitioner on 02.01.1996. Fifth respondent died and his legal representatives were impleaded as R7 to R11. Since the Patta stood in the name of the 6th respondent, respondents 2 to 5 had filed an appeal before the first respondent seeking joint Patta in their favour. In the said appeal the petitioner, who has purchased the property on 02.01.1996 was not made a party. However, it is seen that during the pendency of the said appeal, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram passed an order on 25.01.2010 transferring the Patta in the name of the petitioner. In the meantime, this transfer of Patta was stayed by the first respondent in the appeal filed by the respondents 3 to 5. On coming to know about the stay granted, the petitioner moved the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking to vacate the stay. In the meantime, the petitioner had also filed a suit in O.S.No.11 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction. While hearing the vacate stay petition, the Revenue Divisional Officer had chosen to dispose of the appeal itself directing restoration of the Patta in the name of the sixth respondent and directing the parties to approach the Civil Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.
3. Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the suit in O.S.No.11 of 2010 was decreed after contest on 16.08.2013 and the defendants in the said suit namely the respondents 3 to 5 herein had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.35 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram as against the decree, dated 16.08.2013. It is also submitted by him that the appeal was dismissed for default by the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram on 19.03.2014 and no steps have been taken for restoration of the said appeal till date. In the operative portion of the order impugned in this writ petition, the first respondent has observed as follows: ??jhth epyk; bjhlh;ghf ,uhkehjg[uk; khtl;l chpikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; X/v!;/vz;/11-2010y; tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L epYitapy; ,Ug;gjhy; ,k;nky;KiwaPl;L kDjhuh; nkw;go X/v!;/vz;/11-2010y; jdJ chpikia epiyehl;o cj;jut[ bgw;W mjdog;gilapy; ghpfhuk; njof;bfhs;syhk; vd;Wk; cj;jut[ ,lg;gLfpwJ/? ??
?
4. It is clear that the first respondent has not recognised the claim of the respondents 3 to 5 and he has only directed them to await the result of the Civil Suit. Now the Civil Suit has also been decreed in favour of the petitioner and it is open to the petitioner to approach the Tahsildar seeking modification of the entries in the Patta Passbook as per Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act. Upon receipt of such application, the second respondent/Tahsildar is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside subject to the proceedings to be taken pursuant to the decree granted by the Civil Court. The Tahsildar shall make an endeavour and dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram..