Mismatch in land area in patta
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 25 June 2023
This query is : Resolved
Our patta is in grand father's name. As per the document, it shows 2 grounds and 0118 sq ft which is almost equal to 4800+ square foot. As per settlement deed, this entire 4800+ square foot land was divided into 6 shares for their 6 sons. Among the 6 sons, 1 has already applied for a separate patta which was measured and approved for 700 square foot. So, we thought that there will be a remaining 4100 square foot left for the 5 of their sons. However, when we checked online recently using our survey number and sub division number, we found out that it shows 99 square meter which is equal to 1071 square foot. We do not know why there is such a huge difference of 3000+ square foot which is missing. Settlement deed clearly states that we have 4000+ square foot settlement done for their 6 sons. We contacted the Tahsildhar office in Chennai and they have forwarded our case to RDO. What can be done in such cases? Should we wait for the results from RDO or is there any way by which we can approach this?
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 26 June 2023
Yes. You can consult in RDO's office. The RDO will get it inquired and after that, he will pass the order.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 27 June 2023
There is a discrepancy in the mutation records.
It may be an error due to uploading of the details by the data operator.
If you have to the original parent deed and the settlement deed made in accordance to the extent of property as found in the mother deed and have duly mutated the property as per the division effected through the settlement deed, then you may wait for the RDO enquiry to be completed for getting solution, if there is no solution is in the sight even after a lapse of great period of time, you may approach court with a suit to direct the revenue department to rectify the error.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 27 June 2023
Thank you so much for your valuable feedback to both Sathyanarayana Sir and Kalaiselvan Sir. I got some clarity on this case. Thanks again.
