(Prayer: WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry into the issue of transfer of patta No.545 in respect of lands to an extent of 31 cents comprised in Survey Nos.357/7A and 357/7C of Omandur Village in the name of the 7th respondent, E.Ravichandran, S/o.Poosariar Ekambaram by the 5th respondent, Tahsildar, Mannachanallur proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa.3/5702/2013 dated 12.9.2013 and cancel the patta No.545 issued in the name of the 7th respondent, E.Ravichandran, S/o.Poosariar Ekambaram and consequently, direct the 5th respondent to transfer the patta in the name of Sri Bakavathi Mariamman Kovil, Omandur.)

S. Manikumar, J.

1. Omandur Makkal Nala Sangam, represented by its President A.Jambugeswaran, has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the Secretary, Department of Revenue Administration, Disaster Management & Mitigation, Chennai and the Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Department of Revenue Administration, Disaster Management & Mitigation, Chennai, the respondents 1 and 2 respectively, to conduct an enquiry into the issue of transfer of patta No.545 in respect of lands to an extent of 31 cents comprised in Survey Nos.357/7A and 357/7C of Omandur Village in the name of the 7th respondent, E.Ravichandran, S/o.Poosariar Ekambaram by the 5th respondent, Tahsildar, Mannachanallur proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa.3/5702/2013 dated 12.9.2013, cancel the patta No.545 issued in the name of the 7th respondent, E.Ravichandran, S/o.Poosariar Ekambaram and consequently, direct the 5th respondent to transfer the patta in the name of Sri Bakavathi Mariamman Kovil, Omandur.

2. Material on record discloses that earlier in W.P.No.44633 of 2002, Omandur Village Panchayat, has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Manchanallur, Kancheepuram District, in Mu.Mu.711/2002 dated 28.03.2002 . W.P.No.18799 of 2003, has been filed by the same village panchayat for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Manchanallur, Kancheepuram District, in Tho.Mu.Di.Ke.1034-2001-2002 dated 02.11.2001.

3. Both the writ petitions pertain to pattas, issued to Thailammaiammai and subsequently in the name of Mrs.Palaniammal, the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.18799 of 2003 (since deceased). The legal representatives of the said respondent have been impleaded as respondents 5 to 8, as per the order dated 05.10.2012 in WMP No.346 of 2012 in WP.No.18799 of 2003.

4. After considering the rival submissions by a common order in W.P.No.44633 of 2002 and 18799 of 2003 dated 05.10.2012, writ Court ordered as hereunder.

"3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, by filing a counter, vehemently contended that the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are frivolous one and it is not known on what basis the present writ petitions were filed to adjudicate the title of the property, when the fourth respondent has purchased the property from one Thailammaiammal by registered sale deed dated 17.08.2006. Further, it was contended that initially, the disputed property in Survey Nos.357/A and 357/C of Omandur Village originally belonged to one P.M.Perianna Pillai, who had two daughters, namely, Kamatchiammal and Thailammaiammal and thereafter, the said property was also partitioned between two sisters by a registered document dated 16.08.1952, whereby, A schedule property was allotted to Kamatchiammal, while B schedule property was allotted Thailammaiammal. Subsequently, the said Kamatchiammal executed a Will in favour of his grand daughter Saraswathi on 11.08.1953, but, after some time, by cancelling this Will, another Will was executed on 29.11.1955, specifically making a recital therein that the said Saraswathi would be able to get the property only if she marries the son of Palaniammal. But, as per the Will, since the said Saraswathi did not marry Palaniammals son, the property was retained by the said Palaniammal/third respondent herein. Therefore, when these are the disputed facts involved in the cases on hand, he cannot file the writ petitions challenging the impugned orders passed by the second respondent, unless a competent Civil Court gives verdict on the title of the petitioner. On that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

4. Though this argument of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent appears to be appealing one, the way in which the second respondent granted patta cancelling the name of the petitioner without holding proper enquiry is required to be interfered with, for yet another reason that in the impugned order dated 02.11.2001, the second respondent recorded that the aunt of the third respondent-Palaniammal was no more on the date of the impugned order, but, surprisingly, the death certificate dated 04.03.2009 filed before this Court shows that the said Thailammaiammal died only on 27.09.2008, therefore, it is clear that the respondents 3 and 4 misguided the Tahsildar for getting patta in their favour. Hence, for the reasons stated above, the second respondent-Tahsildar is directed to rehear both parties after giving proper notice and thereafter, he is at liberty to pass proper orders on merits in respect of issuing patta as expeditiously as possible.

5. In result, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner stand allowed by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the second respondent-Tahsildar. No Costs."

5. Contending inter alia that the land belongs to Omandur Makal Nalla Sangam, petitioner is stated to have sent a representation to respondents 1 to 4, to conduct an enquiry into the transfer of patta No.545 in respect of lands to an extent of 31 cents comprised in Survey Nos.357/7A & 357/7c of Omandur Village in the name of P.Ravichandran, son of Poosariyar Ekambaram, issued by the Tahsildar, Manchanallur, Tirucharapalli District, by proceedings in RC.No.Aa.3/5702/2013 dated 12.09.2013 and to cancel the same.

6. Contending inter alia that though the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Chennai and the Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Department of Revenue Administration, Disaster Management & Mitigation, Chennai, respondents 1 and 2, respectively, have received the representation on 26.09.2018 and though the District Collector, Tirucharapalli District and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi, Tirucharapalli District, respondents 3 and 4 have received the representation on 25.09.2018, all of them did not chose to take any action on the representation dated 24.09.2018, instant writ petition is filed for a mandamus, for the relief stated supra.

7. Record of proceedings shows that on 10.12.2018, when the matter came up for admission, representation has been made that the writ petitioner / Omandur Makkal Nala Sangam, has been called upon that day, for the purpose of hearing. Taking note of the same, a Honble Division Bench of this Court on 10.12.2018, recorded as hereunder.

"It is represented that concerned RDO is conducting an enquiry today and that the petitioner / Nala Sangam is called upon today for the purpose of hearing. Hence, at request of Mr.S.N.Parthasarathy, learned Government Advocate, who appears for R1 to R6, the matter is adjourned to 17.12.2018.

In the interregnum, it is open to the respondents 1 to 6 to file a complete and comprehensive report as to the enquiry conducted by the concerned RDO in the subject matter in issue and also to file a counter."

8. On 05.02.2019, when the matter came up for hearing, we directed the learned Government Advocate to ascertain the stage of enquiry and directed files to be produced.

9. Files produced and perused indicate that the writ petitioner has submitted a petition dated 20.09.2018 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi, Tirucharapalli District. Acting on the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi, Tirucharapalli, has issued a notice dated 17.10.2018, fixing the enquiry on 12.11.2018. Notice dated 17.10.2018, is extracted

TAMIL

10. Enquiry fixed on 12.11.2018 did not take place. Therefore, a fresh notice dated 10.12.2018 has been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi, fixing the enquiry on 31.12.2018. Thereafter, there is no notice.

11. Mr.Kandhan Doraisami, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice fixing enquiry on 12.11.2018 was received only on 13.11.2018. A perusal of the supporting affidavit to this writ petition shows that though on the representation dated 20.09.2018, action has been taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi, Tirucharapalli, to conduct an enquiry and even though the petitioner has received the notice dated 17.10.2018 fixing the enquiry on 12.11.2018, of course belatedly, is very much aware that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi, Tirucharapalli, has already started the proceedings for conducting an enquiry. Despite the same, the petitioner in the affidavit filed on 27.11.2018 has suppressed this information of the commencement of the enquiry proceedings and blamed the respondents 1 to 4, as if they have not taken any action on his representation and thus, a writ of mandamus be issued against them.

12. Respondents have discharged their duty by acting on the petition and started the proceedings for conducting an enquiry. Petitioner has received notice. Though, Mr.Kandhan Doraisami, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention to paragraph nos.4 and 5 of the common order made in W.P.No.44633 of 2002 and 18799 of 2003 dated 05.10.2012, filed for a mandamus, the same cannot be an answer for suppression. Petitioner has unnecessarily wasted the time of this Court. Suppression of receipt of the notice, is per se apparent. Writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Juvenile Justice Fund, Director of Social Defence, Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of Tamilnadu, Kellys, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010, within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

13. We make it clear that dismissal of the writ petition on the above said ground, should not in any way influence the decision to be rendered on the merits of the case, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi, Tirucharappali, in the enquiry. Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi, Tirucharapalli, is directed to complete the enquiry within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties to the proceedings should extend their fullest co-operation and should not seek for adjournment except for bonafide reasons, which the Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi, shall consider.