Madras High Court
M.Chandran vs The Principal Secretary And ... on 13 July, 2021
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
and
W.M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010 and
W.M.P. Nos. 1988 of 2018 and 9626 and 9628 of 2021
1. M.Chandran
2. C.Poongavanam
3. C.Pannerselvam
4. C.Munusamy
5. C.Ravi
6. B.Kasthuri
7. C.Ramesh
8. C.Kumar
9. L.Eswari ... Petitioners
P2 to P9 substituted as Lrs of deceased sole
petitioner vide order dated 09.03.2021 made
in W.M.P. No. 2585 of 2021 in W.P. No.
17883 of 2010 by SSSRJ)
-vs-
1. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner
of Land Administration, Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
2. The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Office,
Ponneri.
4. The Tahsildar,
Ponneri.
5. P.Elumalai,
President,
Padianallur Panchayat.
6. S.Viswanathan,
Ex-Vice President,
Padianallur Panchayat.
7. Paidanallur Ooratchi Grama Makkal Pothu Nala Sangam,
Represented by its President,
Mr.S.Innasi,
No.4/707A, Sri Venkateswara Complex,
Mahalakshmi Nagar Service Road,
Padianallur, Red Hills, Chennai - 600 052. ... Respondents
(R7 impleaded vide order dated 06.01.2021
made in W.M.P. No. 29402 of 2019 in W.P.
No. 17883 of 2010 by SSSRJ)
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorified Mandamus calling for
the records of the order of the first respondent in Rc.No.K1/17929/2009
dated 08.02.2010 and the consequential order of the fourth respondent
dated 03.08.2010 and quash the same and consequentially direct the
respondents to issue a patta in favour of the petitioners.
2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
For Petitioners : Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Counsel for Govt for R1 to R4
Mr.T.Mohan
for Ms.S.Vasanthi for R6
Mr.Haja Nazirudeen
Senior Advocate
for Mr.G.Balraj for R7
R5-died
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorified
Mandamus calling for the records of the order of the first respondent in
Rc.No.K1/17929/2009 dated 08.02.2010 and the consequential order of
the fourth respondent dated 03.08.2010 and quash the same and
consequentially direct the respondents to issue patta in favour of the
petitioners.
2. The very short facts which are required to be noticed for the
disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows:
(i) The property measuring to an extent of 50 cents in Paimash
No.188 at Padianallur Village is the subject matter, in respect of which,
title and possession is claimed by the petitioners by relying upon a sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
deed dated 20.03.1968 as well as 01.06.1968. However, one Elumalai,
President and one Viswanathan, Vice President of the Padianallur
Village Panchayat, who are the fifth and sixth respondents in this Writ
Petition, seems to have claimed the ownership of the subject land in
favour of the Village Panchayat. This scenario probably triggered the
first petitioner and another to approach the Civil Court by filing a Suit in
O.S. No.245 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri,
where the fifth and sixth respondents were arrayed as defendants.
(ii) The prayer sought for in the Suit is for declaration and
consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The
said Suit was decreed by judgment and decree of the trial Court dated
26.11.2001, as against which, first appeal was filed in A.S. No. 25 of
2002 before the Sub-Court, Ponneri by the fifth and sixth respondents
herein, who stood as appellants in the appeal and the said first appeal
also was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 19.02.2003. As against
the dismissal of the first appeal, the second appeal was filed before this
Court by the fifth and sixth respondents herein, who stood as appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
in S.A. No. 1611 of 2003, the said appeal was pending consideration
before this Court till 15.02.2010.
(iii) In the meanwhile, based on the said sale deed, which were
Exs.A1 and A2 as marked before the trial Court by the petitioners herein,
they were able to get patta from the Assistant Settlement Officer,
Tiruvannamalai, which was questioned before the higher authorities of
the Revenue Department. Ultimately, the matter had gone to the Land
Commissioner of the State Government, who remanded the matter and in
the meanwhile, writ proceedings had also been filed by the petitioners,
where some directions have been given.
(iv) Ultimately, the issue had gone to the first respondent / Land
Commissioner for consideration and who after considering the said issue
in detail, where the petitioners as well as fifth and sixth respondents and
the Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk also were heard, has passed a detailed order
on 08.02.2010, whereby, the first respondent has given a finding that, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
petitioners have failed to prove their title, possession and enjoyment, of
the land with supportive documents and therefore, the claims of the
petitioners for issuance of patta is to be rejected as devoid of merits.
Accordingly, the said request was rejected and the order of the Assistant
Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai which issued patta in favour of the
petitioners dated 26.03.1998 in the first instance and on 17.07.2000 in
the second instance were set aside and the land in question were ordered
to be retained as Government Poramboke vacant Village site in the
revenue records.
3. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the first respondent
dated 08.02.2010, the present Writ Petition has been filed with the
aforesaid prayer.
4. I have heard Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, who has made an extensive arguments and in order to
counter the same, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
Government appearing for the first to fourth respondents and Mr.Haja
Nazirudeen, learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent,
namely Paidanallur Ooratchi Grama Makkal Pothu Nala Sangam and also
the learned counsel who appeared for the sixth respondent made
elaborate submissions. It is to be noted that, the fifth respondent one
Elumalai, during the pendency of the Writ Petition died. It is also to be
noted that, the original petitioner in this Writ Petition one Chandran
since died during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioners, i.e.,
P2 to P9 as legal heirs of the original petitioner Chandran, have been
impleaded as party petitioners in this Writ Petition.
5. I have heard the said submissions in detail made by the learned
respective counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the
materials placed before this Court.
6. One important aspect is to be noted that, this impugned order
was passed by the first respondent on 08.02.2010, while he passes the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
impugned order, the Second Appeal, i.e., S.A. No. 1611 of 2003, as
referred to above, was pending consideration before this Court. Exactly,
after one week of the impugned order, the Second Appeal was disposed
of by this Court on 15.02.2010. Therefore, what are all the findings given
by this Court in the said Second Appeal, while dismissing the Second
Appeal filed by the fifth and sixth respondents, could not be considered
by the first respondent while passing the impugned order, as he did not
have such an occasion to consider.
7. In view of the said factors, this Court, after having perused the
entirety of the orders passed by this Court in the Second Appeal, as
referred to above, dated 15.02.2010, is of the view that, there are some
findings given by this Court in the said Second Appeal, which are
diagnostically contra to or opposite to, the findings in respect of some
documents or happenings, in the impugned order of the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
8. Illustratively, if we take up the findings given by this Court in
the Second Appeal, on the Exs.Al and A2 which are the two sale deeds,
under which, the petitioners claim title and possession over the property
as well as Ex.A3, which is a certified copy of the Survey Registration
Extract of Padinallur Village issued by the District Collector. The
findings in the Second Appeal of this Court is that, those documents were
filed and proved before the trial Court, based on which, the possession of
the plaintiffs have been proved.
9. Whereas, in the impugned order, the first respondent has given
the finding to state that, as on date, there was no record that, such
Natham Accounts were handed over by the Natham Settlement Scheme
Tahsildars to the Collectorate, Tiruvallur. While so, the extract of
Natham land register issued by the Collectorate raises serious doubts as
to the veracity of the said document and therefore, it cannot be relied
upon. In this regard, the Collector has to take necessary action against the
person responsible for issuance of bogus Natham settlement extract.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
10. If such a contra findings are given in the two orders, one is by
this Court and another by the first respondent, i.e., impugned order, this
Court feels that, the findings given by this Court in the Second Appeal,
as referred to above, can very well be placed before the first respondent
for their consideration and after taking into account of the said findings
and after hearing the parties concerned, if the first respondent passes any
order, depending upon the outcome of such order, the parties can
workout their remedy.
11. However, at the present stage, since the impugned order is
dated 08.02.2010 and after one week of the same only, the findings in the
Second Appeal had been given by this Court on 15.02.2010, where the
case of the petitioners have been accepted and accordingly, the Second
Appeal filed by the fifth and sixth respondents has been dismissed, it
becomes imperative on the part of the first respondent to look into these
findings. Otherwise, if we allow the impugned order to sustain at this
stage, the findings given by this Court based on the documents and the
evidence let in before the trial Court, would become otiose and that kind
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
of ineffectiveness cannot be attached with the findings given by this
Court.
12. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that, the impugned
order, only for the said reason alone, can be set aside and remitted back
the matter to the first respondent for reconsideration and while
reconsidering the same, it is open to the parties to put forth their case
including the findings of this Court dated 15.02.2010 made in
S.A. No. 1611 of 2003 as referred to above in aid of the petitioners or
otherwise and only in that case, the contesting respondents, i.e., seventh
respondent as well as the Government side would be in a position to
establish their case contra to the findings given by this Court in the
Second Appeal, if they are advised to do so and after considering the
case and counter case to be projected by both sides before the first
respondent, if he ultimately comes to a conclusion and pass final orders
that would be binding on both sides and still either of the party feel
aggrieved, they can very well agitate the issue in the manner known to
law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
13. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of
this Writ Petition with the following orders:
"(i) That the impugned order is quashed and the
matter is remitted back to the first respondent for
reconsideration. While reconsidering the matter,
fair opportunity of being heard shall be given to
both sides, i.e., petitioners herein as well as all the
respondents herein including all Government
authorities enabling them to produce the relevant
records and documents available with them to
substantiate their respective cases. After giving
such fair opportunity of being heard to both sides,
decision shall be taken and final order shall be
passed by the first respondent on merits and in
accordance with law and the aforesaid needful
shall be undertaken by the first respondent within
a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
(ii) It is made clear that, till such decision is taken
and final order is passed by the first respondent,
the status quo as on today, insofar as the disputed
property is concerned shall be maintained. It is
further made clear that, no precipitate action shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
be taken by either parties in respect of the property
in question in the meanwhile, as that would be
viewed seriously.
(iii) It is also made clear that, the status quo as on
today means, what has been done in the disputed
property till today shall be maintained, no further
activities shall be undertaken by either party."
14. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is
disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
13.07.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
vji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
To
1. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner
of Land Administration, Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2. The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Office,
Ponneri.
4. The Tahsildar,
Ponneri.
5. P.Elumalai,
President,
Padianallur Panchayat.
6. S.Viswanathan,
Ex-Vice President,
Padianallur Panchayat.
7. S.Innasi,
The President,
Paidanallur Ooratchi Grama Makkal Pothu Nala Sangam,
No.4/707A, Sri Venkateswara Complex,
Mahalakshmi Nagar Service Road,
Padianallur, Red Hills,
Chennai - 600 052.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
vji
W.P. No. 17883 of 2010
and
W.M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010
and W.M.P. Nos. 1988 of 2018
and 9626 and 9628 of 2021
13.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
