K. Jayaraman vs The Tahsildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 14444 Mad

                                                                W.P. No.13563 of 2021

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                             DATED : 19.07.2021

                                    CORAM

      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

                           W.P. No. 13563 of 2021
                                    and
                           WMP.No.14430 of 2021


K. Jayaraman                                             ...      Petitioner

                                        Vs

1. The Tahsildar,
   Mambalam Taluk,
   Chennai.
   Chennai District.

2. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
   Mambalam Taluk,
   Chennai,
   Chennai District.                                      ...     Respondents

       Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in
patta transfer application in No.2021/0153/02/000764 dated 20.06.2021 and
directing the respondents to issue patta in respect of T.S.No.17 Block No.44,
measuring 1349 sq.ft in Old NO.35, New No.26 Jennis Road, Saidapet, Chennai
15 in the light of judgment 2008(1) CTC 660.


1/6
                                                             W.P. No.13563 of 2021

      For petitioner                    ...     Mr. J. Franklin

      For respondents                   ...     Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan,
                                                Government Advocate

                                   ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed

by the 2nd respondent refusing to register a sale certificate, which was

submitted by the petitioner for registration.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the successful bidder in

respect of the land in T.S.No.17 of Zamin Mambalam Village, Mambalam

Guindy Taluk, in a public auction conducted by the Indian Bank, Chennai,

North Branch, under the SARFAESI Act. He has paid the entire amount

and the sale was also confirmed in his favour and sale certificate was also

issued on 31.08.2020. Based on the sale certificate, possession of the

property was also handed over to the petitioner. Subsequently, he submitted

his application before the first respondent through on-line for issuing patta

and the second respondent sent a communication stating that his application

has been rejected without assigning any reason whatsoever. Now,

challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

W.P. No.13563 of 2021

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for

issuance of patta, registering a sale certificate is not compulsory and it is an

optional one and for that reason, the 2nd respondent cannot refused to issue

patta. That apart, the petitioner has also produced all the parent documents

relating to the property and that was also not considered by the 2nd

respondent in a proper perspective. The learned counsel further submitted

that the borrower did not challenge the same so far and hence, the auction

sale becomes final. In the said circumstances, the 2nd respondent cannot

refuse to issue patta. To support his contention, the learned counsel also

relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this court in the case of K.

Chidambara manickam /vs/ Shakeena & others reported in 2008(1) CTC

660 .

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondent would submit that since the petitioner fails to produce the parent

documents, the Registrar refused to issue patta and the impugned order

clearly shows the same and it cannot be stated as a non-speaking order.

5. I have considered the submissions made on either side and

perused the materials available on records carefully.

W.P. No.13563 of 2021

6. From the perusal of the order, it could be seen that the 2nd

respondent only refused to issue patta on the ground that the petitioner fails

to produce the parent documents. According to the petitioner, all the parent

documents along with the sale certificate has been produced by the

petitioner and without considering the same, the Tahsildar refused to issue

patta.

7. Considering the above circumstances, this writ petition is

allowed and the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is set-aside

and the petitioner is directed to submit the Sale Certificate along with the

parent documents with the first respondent within a period of two weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the first respondent is

directed to consider the same and issue patta, if the papers are otherwise in

order, within a period of four(4) weeks thereafter. No costs.

Consequentially, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

19.07.2021 Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order mrp

W.P. No.13563 of 2021

To

1. The Tahsildar, Mambalam Taluk, Chennai.

Chennai District.

2. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Mambalam Taluk, Chennai, Chennai District.

W.P. No.13563 of 2021

V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.

mrp

W.P. No. 13563 of 2021

19.07.2021