M.Joseph Marlin vs. The Tahsildar

Facts

The petitioner, M. Joseph Marlin, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order passed by the Tahsildar (1st respondent) and to direct the Tahsildar and Head Surveyor (2nd respondent) to survey, subdivide, and issue a separate patta for a portion of land. The petitioner had sold 9 ares of a total 10.5 ares property to the third respondent via a sale deed dated 07/11/2006. The petitioner claimed a balance of 1.5 ares remained with him and sought a separate patta for this remaining portion. The impugned order from the Tahsildar stated that the schedule of properties in the sale deed was unclear, citing discrepancies between 'ares' and 'cents' mentioned in the document.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar was liable to be set aside. The Court found that the confusion in the sale deed, arising from the mention of both 'ares' and 'cents', was a procedural flaw that should not prevent the petitioner from obtaining a separate patta for the land he retained. It was evident from the sale deed that the petitioner had sold only 9 ares, and the remaining 1.5 ares, equivalent to 3.75 cents, was still with him. The Court directed the official respondents to survey the said 3.75 cents, demarcate it, and issue a separate patta. The Court also mandated adherence to specific Standard Operating Procedures for the survey, including issuing notice to the petitioner, obtaining his signature upon receiving the notice, and recording his satisfaction or dissatisfaction after the survey. This exercise was to be completed within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar, which refused to conduct a survey and issue a separate patta due to alleged ambiguity in the sale deed, is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the petitioner's claim over the remaining 1.5 ares of land? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the sale deed clearly indicated the sale of 9 ares, leaving 1.5 ares with him. He argued that the Tahsildar's refusal was based on a misinterpretation of the sale deed, where a confusion between 'ares' and 'cents' led to the impugned order. The petitioner sought the quashing of the order and a direction to conduct the survey and issue a patta for the remaining land. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents (Tahsildar and Head Surveyor) argued through their order that the schedule of properties in the sale deed was not clear, citing a discrepancy where one part mentioned 'ares' and another mentioned 'cents'. They did not appear to present further arguments in court.