Madras High Court
E.Soundar Rajan vs The District Collector on 18 February, 2021
WP.No.600/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 18.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
W.A.No.600 of 2021
1.E.Soundar Rajan
2.E.Indhiran .. Appellants
Versus
1.The District Collector,
Chennai.
2.The Revenue Inspector,
District Collector Office,
Chennai 600 091.
3.The Commissioner of Corporation,
Chennai Corporation Office,
Rippon Building, Chennai 600 003.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Division Office,
Guindy, Chennai 600032.
5.The Thasildhar,
Dhasildhar Office,
Solinganallur Taluk,
Chennai District, Rajivgandhi Road,
Solinganallur, Chennai 600 119.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1
WP.No.600/2021
6.The Assistant Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Perungudi Mandalam,
14, Iruppu Ullagaram,
Chennai 600 091.
7.The Mandala Welfare Officer,
Corporation of Chennai,
Perungudi Mandalam,
Iruppu Ullagaram,
Chennai 600 091. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set-
aside the order in W.P.No.24807 of 2019 dated 22.08.2019 and for other
legal submission to made at the time of submission and allow the Writ
Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.U.K.Kalaiarasi
For R1, R2, R4
& R5 : Mr.E.Manoharan
Special Government Pleader
For RR3, 6 & 7 : Mr.K.Raja Srinivas
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.]
The appellants are the writ petitioners. The Writ Appeal is filed
against the Writ Petition filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus praying
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.600/2021
for appropriate direction, directing the 5th respondent to consider his
representation dated 11.04.2019, by fixing a time to give compensation
for the acquisition of land measuring an extent of 4560 sq.ft, situated in
S.F.No.32/1, A.G.S.Colony, No.97, Madhurapuzhuthivakkam Village,
Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091, as per the latest market value, with
compensation and damages.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the said land is classified as
'poromboke land' and the same is in possession and enjoyment of one
Elumalai Naicker, son of Narayanan Naicker, for more than ten years and
he in turn entered into a Sale Agreement dated 31.07.1996 with one
Mr.Parandhaman, for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and executed
an unregistered Sale Deed in his favour and also delivered physical
possession of the property. It appears that the said Paranthaman has
executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Mrs.Dhatchayinee Ammal,
who in-turn, executed a Settlement Deed dated 28.03.2007 bearing
Doc.No.1431 of 2007, registered on the file of the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Velacherry, in favour of the petitioners and as such, the
petitioners are having right, title and possession and since the land has
been taken away, they are entitled for compensation.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.600/2021
3. The learned Judge has taken note of the fact that the property
has been conveyed in favour of the petitioners, pursuant to the
unregistered Settlement Deed and that the petitioners have neither title
nor the purchaser of the land and that apart, the land in question is also a
poromboke land and found that the case of the petitioners does not
deserve any consideration and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition
vide impugned order dated 22.08.2019 and aggrieved by the same, the
present Writ Appeal is filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that in the light of the registered Settlement Deed dated 28.03.2007, the
appellants are having right, title and possession and as such, the
respondents ought to have considered the same for compensation within
the time stipulated.
5. Per contra, Mr.E.Manoharan, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and would submit that
even as per the own case of the appellants / writ petitioners, Mr.Elumalai
Naicker claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the land in question
only as an encroacher and in the light of the fact that the land is classified
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.600/2021
as poromboke, they are not having any title and as such, the Sale
Agreement said to have been executed on 31.07.1996 in favour of
Mr.Parandhaman and execution of the unregistered Sale Deed in his
favour would not confer them any right title and that apart, a Suit filed by
the petitioners against the Commissioner, Puzhuthivakkam Municipality
in O.S.No.482 of 2008, on the file of the Court of District Munsif,
Alandur, for permanent injunction also came to dismissed for default on
25.11.2013 and as such, the appellants have no case at all and hence
prays for dismissal of this Writ Appeal with costs.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and
also perused the materials placed before it.
7. Admittedly, the land is classified as poromboke land and it is the
case of the appellants that one Mr.Elumalai Naicker was in possession
and enjoyment of the said land for decades together and he has said to
have entered into the Agreement of Sale with one Parandhaman on
31.07.1996 and also executed the unregistered Sale Deed in his favour
and said to have delivered the possession and thus he derives title by
virtue of the unregistered Sale Deed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.600/2021
8. It is a well settled legal position that under Section 17 of the
Registration Act, Sale Deed in respect of immovable properties above the
value of Rs.100/- requires compulsory registration. Admittedly, it is not
done so and it is also the case of the petitioners that Mr.Parandhaman, in
turn has executed the Power of Attorney, based on which
Mrs.Dhatchayinee, has executed a registered Settlement Deed in favour of
the appellants.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the absence of any
material or evidence as to the right, title and possession in favour of
Mr.Elumalai Naicker, the subsequent registered documents would not
confer any better right and title, even that of the person who was
originally in occupation. The learned Judge has taken note of the factual
aspects and legal position and rightly reached the conclusion to dismiss
the Writ Petition.
10. This Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire
materials and consideration of the rival submissions, is of the considered
view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned by
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.600/2021
the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition and this Court
finds no merit in this Writ Appeal.
11. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the
order dated 22.08.2019 made in W.P.No.24807 of 2019. No costs.
[M.S.N.,J,] [A.A.N.J.]
18.02.2021
sk
Internet:Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
To
1.The District Collector,
Chennai.
2.The Revenue Inspector,
District Collector Office,
Chennai 600 091.
3.The Commissioner of Corporation,
Chennai Corporation Office,
Rippon Building, Chennai 600 003.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Division Office, Guindy, Chennai 600032.
5.The Thasildhar,
Dhasildhar Office,
Solinganallur Taluk, Chennai District, Rajivgandhi Road,
Solinganallur, Chennai 600 119.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.600/2021
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,
AND
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.,
sk
6.The Assistant Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Perungudi Mandalam,
14, Iruppu Ullagaram,
Chennai 600 091.
7.The Mandala Welfare Officer,
Corporation of Chennai,
Perungudi Mandalam,
Iruppu Ullagaram,
Chennai 600 091.
W.A.No.600 of 2021
18.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
