WP.No.15794/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
WP.No.15794/2022
C.N.Varadharajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Tiruppur Corporation Division,
Tiruppur.
3.The Tahsildar
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
4.The Commissioner
Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation
Mangalam Road, Tiruppur
Tamil Nadu 641 604. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to
issue No Objection Certificate by considering the representation dated
31.01.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1
WP.No.15794/2022
For Petitioner : Mrs.Vedavalli Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Balathandayutham
Spl.Govt.Pleader
ORDER
(1) The present writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 4th respondent to issue No Objection Certificate by considering the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2022.
(2) Earlier, when the matter came up for admission on 08.09.2022, this Court had disposed of the above writ petition by directing the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2022 on merits and in accordance with law and to pass orders within a period of twelve weeks without going into the merits. (3) However, upon perusal of the judgment in a second appeal which was also included in the typed set of documents, this Court realised the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court with a motive with a new case contrary to what was pleaded before Civil Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 WP.No.15794/2022 Hence, I directed the Registry to list the above writ petition today [14.09.2022] under the caption ''For Re-hearing''. (4) The brief facts that are narrated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition are as follows.
(5) The petitioner states in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit that the writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate for transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner for the land comprised in TS.No.75/1A, Block No.3, Ward No.4 having electricity service connection with old consumer No.2770 and the new consumer No.64. It is the case of the petitioner that the land measuring an extent of 738 sq.ft., is in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's family for more than 60 years without any let or hindrance. It is the further case of the petitioner that the property was originally allotted to one Mr.Arumugam, petitioner's uncle for running a workshop. Stating that the petitioner's uncle handed over the property to the father of the petitioner and that the petitioner's father executed a Will in favour of the petitioner in the year 1999, bequeathing the property, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 WP.No.15794/2022 the petitioner claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the property.
(6) After admitting that Tiruppur Municipality issued an eviction notice, it is stated that the land in which the petitioner is in possession, is a gramanatham and therefore, the 2nd respondent/RDO cannot evict the petitioner by treating him as a trespasser and the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is infringed. It has been repeatedly stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 2nd respondent tried to evict the petitioner without due process of law even though the property is the property of the petitioner. After suffering an order of eviction by 4th respondent, the petitioner now claims independent right by alleging that the property is gramanatham.
(7) The petitioner however admits that his father challenged the eviction proceedings initiated by the 4th respondent in a suit in OS.No.579/1989 for permanent injunction and the said suit was dismissed. An appeal in AS.No.40/1995 was also dismissed. The petitioner admitted that the Tiruppur Municipality [now Tirupur https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 WP.No.15794/2022 Corporation] / 4th respondent herein issued an eviction notice on 07.04.2000 once again in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner challenged the said eviction notice by filing another suit in OS.No.206/2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur. The petitioner also admits that the said suit was also dismissed on 04.06.2004. The appeal filed by the petitioner in AS.No.41/2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppur, was also dismissed on 10.01.2005 and the Second Appeal preferred as against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below in SA.No.1336/2005 was also dismissed by this Court on 26.03.2019. However, the petitioner states that the judgment and decree passed by this Court in SA.No.1336/2005 was on erroneous grounds. (8) The petitioner further admits that during the pendency of the Second Appeal, the petitioner had filed WP.No.3517/2015 for issuance of a writ of mandamus to issue patta to the petitioner with regard to the property in his enjoyment. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 WP.No.15794/2022 the petitioner's representation was considered and the same was rejected by the respondents. Challenging the said rejection, the petitioner filed another writ petition in WP.No.42424/2016. This writ petition was also dismissed in the year 2016 as admitted by the petitioner in the affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner has given a representation to the 1st respondent on 16.09.2019 requesting for grant of patta in the name of the petitioner. It is really surprising to note that the petitioner has been continuously making false representations despite the fact that his earlier representation was rightly rejected and the writ petition filed against the rejection was also dismissed.
(9) The petitioner stated that he has also sent a representation to the Commissioner of Land Reforms on 24.09.2019 for issuance of patta for the property in his enjoyment. Whenever the petitioner submits a representation, he relied upon a Resolution dated 31.01.1969 passed by the Tirupur Municipality [now Tirupur Corporation] in and by which, the petitioner's uncle Arumugam was directed to pay value of the land to get a Sale Deed from the 4th respondent. Based on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 WP.No.15794/2022 representation of the petitioner, the Tahsildar, vide order dated 20.12.2019 fixed the land value at Rs.10,94,000/- [Rs.1600/- per sq.ft] and held that the petitioner will get allotment upon payment of the value of the property and that the assignment in favour of the petitioner will be considered subject to the No Objection Certificate that would be issued by the Commissioner of Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation. Thereafter, the communication by which the Tahsildar, Tiruppur, requested the 4th respondent to issue No Objection Certificate was considered and the Commissioner, Tirupur City Municipal Corporation issued a Letter in the following lines:-
@kDjhuh; jfg;gdhh; jpU/ejr;rpKj;J vd;gth; nkw;fhz; epyj;jpid cgnahfpj;J te;jjw;fhd
Mjhu';fs; rkh;gg
; pf;fhjjd; nghpy;. khtl;l
ePjpkd;w';fspy; kDjhuuhy; bjhlug;gl;l tHf;Ffs;
js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;lijna cah; ePjpkd;wKk;
Vw;Wf;bfhz;L nky;KiwaPlL
; tHf;fpy; jPhg
; g
; [
tH';fg;gl;Ls;s epiyapYk;. khefuhl;rpf;Fr;
brhe;jkhd epy';fis tpw;gid bra;a jil
tpjpj;J gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;s murhizapd;
mog;gilapYk;. nkw;fhz; epyk; jw;bghGJ fhypahf kDjhuhpd; fl;Lg;ghl;oy; ,y;yhj fhuzj;jpdhYk;. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 WP.No.15794/2022 Kdjhuhpd; nfhhpf;ifapd; mog;gilapy; nkw;go epyj;jpid epyf; fpiua mog;gilapy; epy chpik khw;wk; tH';FtJ Fwpj;J khefuhl;rpapd; K:yk;
Ml;nrgizapd;ikf; fojk; tH';f ,ayhJ vd;w
tpguk; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpd;[email protected]
(10) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 4th
respondent in the following lines:-
@Iah. fle;j 25/06/2020 md;iwa e/f/,1-
1566-2019 d;go jh';fs; jpUg;g{h; bjw;F
jhrpy;jhUf;F vGjpa khefuhl;rpapd;
Ml;nrgidapd;ik jPhk
; hdj;ij
kWghprPyid bra;J nkw;fz;l ,lj;jpy;
v';fs; mDgtk; ekJ efuhl;rp
fpuaj;jpw;F tH';fpajw;fhd jPhk
; hdk;. fpuhk
eph;thf kYtyh; tH';fpa nkw;go epy
chpik mDgy rhd;W Mfpatw;iwa[k;
v';fs; chpikf;fhd FLk;gj;jpy;
tpz;zg;gjuhuhfpa vdf;F fpilf;f ntz;oa
Mjhu';fisa[k; fUj;jpy; bfhz;L
bghUspy;fz;l epyj;ij fpuaj;jpd; ngupy;
vdf;F fpilf;f Vjthf kW
Ml;nrgidapd;ik jPhk
; hdk; xd;iw mDg;gp
itf;FkhW jhH;ika[ld; j';fis ntz;of;
bfhs;fpnwd;/@
(11) From the reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8
WP.No.15794/2022
and the typed set of documents and the nature of the order that is sought to be obtained from this Court by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner in utter defiance of the order of the Civil Court has made an attempt to grab the property of the 4th respondent suppressing material facts and to grab the property by giving a different colour to his case which is quite contrary to the case earlier pleaded by the petitioner against 4th respondent in civil suit.
(12) From the reading of the judgment in SA.No.1336/2005 it appears that the petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the Government of Tamil Nadu and Tiruppur Municipality to sell the property to the plaintiff/petitioner as per the Resolution passed by the Municipality on 31.01.1969. Again, the relief sought for in the said suit was also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Since the petitioner himself admitted that the property belonged to the Government vested with the Tirupur Municipality the case of the plaintiff was that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 WP.No.15794/2022 Resolution passed by the Tirupur Municipality in favour of the petitioner's uncle Arumugam, should be implemented by alienating the suit property in favour of the petitioner. This Court, after elaborately considering the entire pleadings and the documents produced by the petitioner as plaintiff and the defendants, came to the conclusion that the Municipality cannot be compelled to convey the suit property in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner who has not proved that he is in enjoyment of the property, cannot seek any relief as against the 2nd defendant/Municipality. The conclusion reached by this Court confirming the decision of the Courts below would prove that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit admitting the title of Municipality and the prayer in the suit was to grant the relief of mandatory injunction directing the Tirupur Municipality [now Tirupur City Municipal Corporation] to alienate the property in favour of the petitioner as per the Resolution of the Municipality in the year 1969. Every issue raised by the petitioner/plaintiff was found against him and it was held that the petitioner cannot pursue the plaint when his uncle had not purchased https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 WP.No.15794/2022 the property from the Municipality at the earliest point of time even assuming that the case of the petitioner is true. (13) The Civil Court also held that the plaintiff/petitioner has not proved that his father was in occupation the suit property under a valid permission or consent from the Municipality. After holding that the petitioner has no right in respect of the property, this Court also held that the Municipality is prohibited from alienating the property vested with it. From the reading of the judgment of this Court made in the above Second Appeal, it is seen that the petitioner/plaintiff was not even in possession of the property in continuation of his uncle. After failed in the suit in the previous round, the petitioner has now come forward with a new case and approached the Revenue Department for assignment and grant of patta under the pretext that the petitioner is prepared to pay the market value for the land. The Tahsildar has again passed an order without reading the legal implication of the judgment of this Court in the Second Appeal. (14) A thorough scanning of each and every sentence in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the representations submitted by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11 WP.No.15794/2022 the petitioner, indicate that the petitioner has tried to mislead the revenue department as well as the 4th respondent. Ignoring the pleadings the petitioner had raised before the Civil Court which was ultimately dismissed by the Courts below and this Court in the Second Appeal, the petitioner now consciously seeks patta from the Revenue Department by way of assignment upon collection of value that was fixed by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar concerned also appears to have colluded with the petitioner to pass an order in favour of the petitioner.
(15) From the case projected by the petitioner before the Civil Court and the case of the petitioner in the recent representations and the affidavit, after dismissal of Second Appeal, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is in the habit of indulging in litigations in utter disregard to the finality reached in the previous suits. More than that the petitioner has approached this Court earlier during pendency of Second Appeal to lay a foundation to a new case by filing this writ petitions. After dismissal of those writ petitions, the petitioner has again come forward with this writ petition for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12 WP.No.15794/2022 getting No Objection even though, the rejection of his representation was not challenged. This writ petition is an attempt to pollute the stream of justice and an abuse of process of law. (16) The attempt to mislead this Court shows that the conduct of the petitioner is mischievous. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DALIP SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P & OTHERS reported in 200 [2] SCC 114 has expressed its concern about the litigants who do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the Court proceedings and has observed in paragraph No.2 as follows:-
''2.In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the Courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.'' (17) In the light of the facts narrated, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost.
(18) Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with cost of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13 WP.No.15794/2022 Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Only] payable to the Government High School, Mangalam, Tiruppur District, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said school may utilise the above sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for library and other infrastructural facilities that is required immediately for the School with the approval of the Chief Educational Officer, Tirppur District.
(19) Post the matter for reporting compliance after four weeks.
14.09.2022 AP Internet : Yes To
1.The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Tiruppur Corporation Division, Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14 WP.No.15794/2022
3.The Tahsildar Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
4.The Commissioner Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation Mangalam Road, Tiruppur Tamil Nadu 641 604.
COPY TO:
The Headmaster/Headmistress Government High School, Mangalam, Tiruppur District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15 WP.No.15794/2022 S.S.SUNDAR, J., AP WP.No.15794/2022 14.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16