HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
W.P.No.19342 of 2011
M.Periyasamy vs The Thasildar on 24 February, 2012
Dated: 24.02.2012
Facts in Brief:
The petitioner is the lawful proprietor of a property and sold a portion of it. The buyer forged the document and sold the property which is not belonged to him to the respondents (2 to 9). The respondent obtained patta in his favor. Hence, petitioner sent the representation before the Tahsildar (1st Respondent) to consider his representation to cancel the patta. Since the 1st Respondent has not taken any steps to take actions, the present writ petition filed in the nature of mandamus. Ld. Counsel for Respondent no.1 submitted that the application u/s. 10 Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act not competent before the Tahsildar as he does not hold the jurisdiction to review his own order but the remedy available is only before the R.D.O by way of appeal.
Held: The remedy of appeal before R.D.O available only if the proceedings before the Tahsildar had taken place. Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act awards an opportunity for the person who has not been heard when the patta has been granted. Such person can very well approach the Tahsildar to modify or cancel the patta u/s. 10 of the Act.
The provisions of Section 10 are similar to Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the expartee decree.
Respondent no.1, therefore under statutory obligation, has to consider and decide the application, either to accept or reject it, but he cannot sit over it without proceeding further in the matter. The respondent no.1, thus, has failed to perform his duty, under Statute.
Writ Petition allowed. The respondent no. 1 directed to consider the representation not later then six months.
