S. S. Sundar, J. - (1.) This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18538 of 2013, dated 05.09.2014, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: 2.1.The appellant's name was included as owner of a property measuring to an extent of 2.30.5 hectare, that is equivalent to 5.69 Acres in S.No.281/3C in Appaneri Village. It is stated by the appellant that the original owner one Thangammal, who was given patta in respect of 2.30.5 hectares transferred an extent of 5.56 Acres to one M/s.Arun Anith Shelters Limited by a registered sale deed, dated 24.12.2001 and that the said property was once again transferred in favour of the appellant, which is only a sister concern of M/s.Arun Anith Shelters Limited, on 24.10.2003. It is also stated that the entire extent of land was converted into housing plots and that most of the plots have been sold out in favour of third parties, who are in physical enjoyment as on date. 2.2.It is further stated that later based on an application made by the third respondent, there are alteration of revenue records with regard to an extent of 46 cents in favour of third respondent by the impugned order of the first respondent on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar. Later, the appellant has filed a suit in O.S.No.271 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kovilpatti, for permanent injunction against the third respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the appellant. 2.3.It is also not in dispute that the third respondent has filed a written statement making a counter claim for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession in respect of the extent in which the first respondent has directed change of patta. The appellant, thereafter, filed the writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 18.12.2013, by which the patta originally stood in the name of the appellant, was changed in favour of the third respondent to an extent of 46 cents in S.No.281/3C1. This extent was given a separate subdivision, namely, S.No.281/3B, as per the impugned order.
(3.) In the writ petition, one of the main contentions raised by the appellant is that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the first respondent did not give any personal hearing or notice before passing the impugned order. It is also specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the third respondent claims title on the basis of a sale deed alleged to have been obtained by the father of the third respondent in the year 1977 from one Krishna Konar, who died in the year 1967. Though the specific issue with regard to the validity of sale deed that was obtained by the father of the third respondent in the year 1977 is questioned in the writ petition, in the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents as well as the third respondent, there is no specific denial, except referring to the fact that the third respondent's father had obtained the sale deed in the year 1977.;