Pointing to the fact that several petitions were pending before the court pertaining to prevention of encroachments, land grabbing and other such issues, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed that those cases would not stand in the way of a Tahsildar or any other authority to issue patta in the absence of any interim or stay order.
Justice S. Vaidyanathan observed that there was no bar on the authority concerned to issue patta after verifying the records available in the Sub-Registrar’s office and revenue records. Also, nothing prevents the authority to inspect a place as it would ensure removal of encroachments and violations in constructions in order to restore land sites.
The court made the observations while dismissing a petition filed by P. Periyakaruppan of Melur who challenged rejection of his application for name change in patta. The court took into account the fact that the application was rejected on the ground that a civil suit was pending before the Melur Sub-Court in connection with the property.
The court observed that though the civil court could appoint an advocate commissioner to ascertain whether there were any encroachment, the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) itself authorised the court to inspect the site in question. The court directed the Melur Sub-Judge to take up the issue and decide the case expeditiously.
