Madras High Court
Sri Jaya Educational Trust vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 6 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 6.8.2021.
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.14639 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.15524 of 2021
Sri Jaya Educational Trust,
rep. by Chairman Mr.K.K.Selvam,
No.1, VOC 1st Street,
Kodambakkam,
Chennai 600 024. Petitioner
vs.
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chennai Central Division,
Ambattur Division,
5-73, SH 112, Gandhi Nagar,
Anna Nagar West Extension,
Chennai 600 040.
2. The Tahsildhar,
Maduravoyal, Chennai.
3. The District Collector,
Chennai.
4. V.K.Ramamurthy
5. P.T.Balasamy Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to
forthwith cancel patta Nos.4475 & 440 purportedly issued by the
Tahsildar, Maduravoyal Taluk, Chennai District to (1) V.K.Ramamurthy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
and his siblings and to (2) P.T.Balasamy in respect of the property
comprised in Survey Nos.13/1A1, 13/1A2, 13/1B, 13/2 and 13/3
measuring 10 acres situated in Maduravoyal Village, Chennai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Harikrishnan
For RR1 to 3 : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan,
Government Advocate
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the first respondent viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai
Central Division, Ambattur Division to cancel the patta Nos.4475 and
440 which was issued by the second respondent to the fourth and fifth
respondents herein in respect of the property in Survey Nos.13/1A1,
13/1A2, 13/1B, 13/2 and 13/3 measuring 10 acres situated in
Maduravoyal Village, Chennai District.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it had been
stated that Sivakozhudammal and others filed O.S.No.203 of 1996 for
a declaration and permanent injunction against Jayalakshmi Ammal,
(since deceased) and the fourth respondent V.K.Ramamurthy with
respect to the aforesaid lands.
3. It is stated that the petitioner herein was the 8th plaintiff in
the said suit. The said Suit was tried alongwith three connected Suits
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
and finally O.S.No.203 of 1996 was decreed by the Sub Court,
Poonamallee on 22.1.2010 and the other three Suits were dismissed.
4. Thereafter, the fourth respondent herein filed W.P.Nos.1520
to 1525 of 2010 and all those writ petitions were posted before a
Division Bench alongwith W.A.Nos.379 and 380 of 2010 and by order
dated 1.4.2010, the Division Bench disposed the Writ Appeals and the
Writ Petitions directing the fourth respondent herein to file regular first
appeal before the first appellate court against the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.203 of 1996.
5. The fourth respondent, then filed A.S.No.3 of 2011 before the
District Court, Tiruvallur. There was a delay of three days in filing the
Appeal and since no Application had been filed to condone the delay,
the Application filed by the writ petitioner in I.A.No.80 of 2011 was
allowed and the first appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2011 was dismissed as
barred by limitation, by judgment dated 28.3.2012.
6. A Civil Revision Petition was filed by the fourth respondent
herein which was also dismissed on 31.7.2012 granting liberty to the
fourth respondent herein to file Second Appeal and the fourth
respondent herein had filed S.A.No.981 of 2012.
7. It is stated that all these proceedings were suppressed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
fourth respondent and his brothers and sisters and they had also
received a compensation of Rs.1,12,09,938/- from the National
Highways Authority of India which had acquired a portion of land
measuring 1263 sq.mtrs in Survey No.13/1A1 and Survey No.13/3
part, Maduravoyal Village for widening of the road.
8. The writ petitioner herein then raised the issue before this
court by filing M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in S.A.No.981 of 2012 and it is
stated that a learned Single Judge of this court disposed of S.A.No.981
of 2012 by order dated 23.4.2013 directing the fourth respondent to
file a delay condonation application before the first appellate court and
to deposit 1/6 of the compensation amount and then prosecute the
first appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2011.
9. The writ petitioner filed S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, which, by order dated 2.12.2014 disposed all the three S.L.Ps
and directed hearing of S.A.No.981 of 2012.
10. The second appeal, then, came to be disposed of by
judgment and decree dated 30.11.2020 remanding the matter back to
the first appellate court. The fourth respondent was directed to
deposit 1/6 of the compensation amount, which he had received and I
am confident that the said deposit has also been made which is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
evident from the restoration of the Appeal in the first appellate court.
11. The direction to deposit the 1/6 of the compensation which
the fourth respondent received was made owing to the suppression of
the decree in O.S.No.203 of 1996. Therefore, it logically follows that
the Tahsildar should also cancel the patta granted in favour of
respondents 4 and 5, who had also obtained patta by suppression of
facts.
12. Notice had been directed to the fifth respondent but, it had
returned with the endorsement 'no such person'.
13. Let the Tahsildar, Maduravoyal, after completion of all the
civil proceedings between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5,
revive the claim with respect of grant of patta.
14. In the meanwhile, status quo ante will necessarily have to be
restored and that would imply that the patta granted pendente lite of
the various Civil Suits, First Appeals, Second Appeals and SLP will
necessarily have to be cancelled and therefore, a mandamus is issued
directing the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer to direct the
second respondent, Tahsildar, Maduravoyal, Chennai to cancel the
patta issued in patta No.4475 and 440 to the fourth and fifth
respondents with reference to the above mentioned properties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
15. The issue of grant of patta may be revived after the parties
settle their issues which are now pending before the first appellate
court and subsequent proceedings.
16. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. The
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17. It is to be stated that after the order had been dictated in
open court, a representation was made on behalf of the fourth
respondent that a Senior Counsel has been engaged and he would
appear and that the order should be held over till 10.8.2021. Such a
request is refused. The order already dictated stands.
6.8.2021.
Index: Yes/No.
Internet: Yes/No.
ssk.
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chennai Central Division,
Ambattur Division,
5-73, SH 112, Gandhi Nagar,
Anna Nagar West Extension,
Chennai 600 040.
2. The Tahsildhar,
Maduravoyal, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3. The District Collector,
Chennai.
4. Sri Jaya Educational Trust,
rep. by Chairman Mr.K.K.Selvam,
No.1, VOC 1st Street,
Kodambakkam,
Chennai 600 024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Ssk.
W.P.No.14639 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.15524 of 2021
6.8.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
