Madras High Court
E.Harinath vs The District Collector on 14 June, 2021
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.27031 of 2018
and W.M.P.No.31428 of 2018
E.Harinath ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The District Collector
Office of the Collectorate
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
2.The District Revenue Officer
Kanchipuram District
Collectorate Office
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
3.The Sub Collector
Office of the Sub-Collector
Chenglepet.
4.The Tahsildar
Thirupporur Taluk
Thirupporur
Kanchipuram District.
5.Mr.M.Natesan ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records on the file of 2nd respondent
in Na.Ka.No. 3253/ 2018 N4 dated 16.08.2018 confirming the order of the 2nd
respondent in Na.Ka.No. 1893/ 13 dated 18.01.2018 and quash the same and
consequently direct 3rd respondent to restore the Patta No. 1466 in respect of Old
S.No. 52/ 6 and New S.No. 52/ 6A2 for house site having an extent of 4.5 ares or
11 cents in Thazhambur Village Tirupporur Taluk Kanchipuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 14
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Ravikumar
For Respondents : Ms.Akila Rajendran, Govt.Advocate – for RR 1 to 4
Mr.V.Raghavachari for Mr.M.Deivanandam-for R5
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling
for the records on the file of 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.3253/2018 N4 dated
16.08.2018 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 1893/ 13
dated 18.01.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct 3rd respondent to
restore the Patta No. 1466 in respect of Old S.No. 52/6 and New S.No. 52/6A2 for
house site having an extent of 4.5 ares or 11 cents in Thazhambur Village
Tirupporur Taluk, Kanchipuram District.
2. The Nanja property at Survey No.52/6 to the extent of 0.25.0 Ares at
Thazhambur Village, Thirupporur Taluk, Kanchipuram District is the subject matter.
3. The short facts which are required for the disposal of this writ petition are
as follows. That the property in question is claimed to have been purchased by the
fifth respondent sometime in the year 2000 by a Sale Deed dated 31.07.2000.
Though the said sale deed was placed before the concerned registering authority for
registration, in view of the alleged deficit stamp duty, the document has been kept
at the registering authority's office as pending document between 31.07.2000 and
10.08.2001. During this time, it seems that the original owner of the property one
Sathianarayana Reddy had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Balaji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
28.08.2000. The said Balaji, with the strength of the said power, executed Sale
Deeds in favour of third parties in Document Nos.1882 and 1884 dated 15.09.2000.
In this regard, it is to be noted that, earlier a power seems to have been executed
by the original owner Sathianarayana Reddy to and in favour of one Mrs.Prabha
Irudhayamary and subsequently it seems that, the said power has also been
cancelled and only after cancelling the said power, ie., one year from such
cancellation, the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 31.07.2000 seems to have been
effected between Sathianarayana Reddy and the fifth respondent.
4. When that being so, pursuant to the sale effected to and in favour of third
parties in the year 2000, based on the power which was executed in favour of one
Balaji by the original owner Sathianarayana Reddy, a part of the land in the
disputed property had been subsequently transferred to various third parties in
succession, wherein one Prabhakaran purchased a part of the property and thus, he
wanted to have the patta changed in his name. Therefore, he made an application
to the Revenue Authorities, pursuant to which in respect of part of the land in the
disputed property which has been subsequently subdivided with Sub Division
No.52/6A and in respect of the said property, patta had been issued by the
Tahsildar, Chengelpet on 23.04.2007.
5. From the said Prabhakaran, it seems that the present petitioner has
purchased the said property ie., part of the original property and that is how the
petitioner has claimed right over the property in question.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
6. It is in that circumstances the fifth respondent, after coming to know all
those developments taken place, where various transactions have taken place, of
course germinated from the power executed by the original owner Sathianarayana
Reddy in favour of Balaji, in order to rectify all those aspects and to recover the
property ie., the whole property in question at the said Survey No.56/2 to the
extent of 0.25.0Ares, had filed O.S.No.521 of 2014, where he has sought for
declaration of atleast four sale deeds executed in favour of various third parties
along with other prayers.
7. The said suit was entertained and it is pending trial before the concerned
Court viz., the District Munsif Court at Chengalpet. During the pendency of the said
suit, the fifth respondent in order to get back the position with regard to the
Revenue Records as stood at the time he purchased the entire property in the year
2000, wanted to cancel the patta issued in favour of one Prabhakaran on
23.04.2007, who is none other than the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner.
Accordingly, he made a request to the Revenue Authorities ie., the Sub Collector /
third respondent, who, after having enquired the matter by hearing both sides ie.,
the present petitioner as well as the fifth respondent, has passed a detailed order
on 18.01.2018, whereby he cancelled the patta in favour of the predecessor-in-title
of the petitioner, and by thus, restored the position as it stood in the year 2000 ie.,
at the time when the fifth respondent claimed to have purchased the entire property
from the original owner Sathianarayana Reddy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
8. Felt aggrieved over the said order passed by the third respondent dated
18.01.2018, the petitioner, who is the present owner, according to him, in respect
of part of the property ie., S.No.52/6A, preferred an appeal before the District
Revenue Officer at Kanchipuram ie., the second respondent. The second
respondent, after having heard both sides and after having gone through the order
passed by the third respondent / Sub Collector, has come to the conclusion that, the
order passed by the third respondent is sustainable and accordingly he sustained
the said order of the third respondent dated 18.01.2018 by rejecting the appeal
filed by the petitioner through the impugned order dated 16.08.2018. Challenging
both the orders passed by the third and second respondent respectively, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
9. Heard Mr.J.Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who
would submit that, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, after having purchased
the property in question ie., part of the property in the original Survey No.52/6, by a
valid sale consideration through a registered sale deed, had applied to the Revenue
Authorities for getting patta and on considering the said plea made by the
predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, the Revenue Authorities also had passed
orders on 23.04.2007 giving patta to the said land to and in favour of the
predecessor-in-title of the petitioner Prabhakaran by subdividing the land concerned
as Survey No.52/6A. After having obtained the patta in the year 2007, the parties
have acted upon and only at that juncture, the petitioner had purchased the
property subsequently. Therefore, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
predecessor-in-title validly. While that being so, the fifth respondent, who filed the
suit admittedly only in the year 2014 seeking so many reliefs, and on the strength
of the filing of the suit, approached the Revenue Authorities to cancel the patta
issued in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner in the year 2007.
10. In this context, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that, the suit was filed in the year 2014 and therefore, what are all
the issues raised in the suit, the cause of action arose only in the year 2014 and
merely because a suit was instituted in the year 2014 has been pending, will it be a
reason for the Revenue Authorities to cancel the patta which was issued in the year
2007. Therefore, citing the said reason that, the issue was pending before the Civil
Court in the year 2014, where it can be decided by the Civil Court, relegating the
said issue to the Civil Court to decide the decision taken by the Revenue Authorities
to cancel the patta issued well before the institution of the suit ie., in the year 2007
itself, whether it would be justifiable is a question. Therefore, the learned counsel
for the petitioner would canvass the point that, if at all the fifth respondent has got
any grievance with regard to his alleged purchase of the property in question in the
year 2000 and correspondingly the subsequent sale deeds taken place in respect of
the property to various third parties and all those transactions, if it is questioned by
the fifth respondent in the suit itself, that can very well be decided by the Civil Court
and the said issues pending before the Civil Court would no way alter the situation
in respect of the revenue records, which had been made in the year 2007 ie., seven
years prior to the institution of the suit. Therefore, citing the said reason, if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
Revenue Authorities came forward to cancel the patta, that would amount to gross
violation of the powers conferred on them. Therefore, the said action on the part of
the Revenue Authorities ie., the third respondent and the second respondent
through the impugned orders are palpably wrong and therefore, those orders are
liable to be interfered with and the patta issued in favour of the predecessor-in-title
of the petitioner in the year 2007 shall be restored, he contended.
11. I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the fifth
respondent, who would submit that, though the suit was filed in the year 2014, the
issues raised therein collectively dates back from the year 2000, the year in which
the entire property was purchased by the fifth respondent from the original owner
Sathianarayana Reddy. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent would further
submit that, despite the sale effected in favour of the fifth respondent in the year
2000, by taking advantage of the period wherein the document in question had
been kept pending before the registering authorities for want of stamp duty, the
original owner, created further third party rights to and in favour of various persons,
unmindful of the total sale already effected in favour of the fifth respondent for a
valid sale consideration. Therefore, the entire gamut of the issue now rests in the
suit filed by the fifth respondent and pending before the Civil Court. Therefore,
collectively the issues raised therein should be decided by the Civil Court. When
that being so, the patta granted in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the
petitioner in the year 2007 since had taken place only seven years after the sale
effected in favour of the fifth respondent, certainly the reason given by the Revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
Authorities for cancelling the said patta is justifiable and therefore the impugned
orders are to be sustained, he contended.
12. Almost in the similar line, Ms.Akila Rajendran, learned Government
Advocate appearing for the official respondents made submissions to sustain the
orders impugned passed by the Revenue Authorities.
13. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have
perused the materials placed on record.
14. No doubt, the original owner of the entire property in Survey No.52/6 to
the extent of 0.25.0 Ares at Thazhambur Village, Thirupporur Taluk, Kanchipuram
District is one Sathianarayana Reddy, from whom it is the claim of the fifth
respondent that, he purchased the entire property in the year 2000, in respect of
which a Sale Deed has been executed in favour of the fifth respondent on
31.07.2000. However, the said Sale Deed, when it was presented for registration
before the registering authorities, was not immediately registered and released the
documents for want of sufficient stamp duty. Therefore, it seems that the
document was kept pending at the Registrar Office from 31.07.2000 to 10.08.2001.
15. It is to be noted in this regard that, prior to the sale executed in favour of
the fifth respondent, it seems that a power of attorney had already been executed
in favour of one Prabha Irudhayamary by the original owner Sathianarayana Reddy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
and the said power also was cancelled one year prior to the Sale Deed dated
31.07.2000 in favour of the fifth respondent.
16. It is to be further noted that, only through the power agent Prabha
Irudhayamary, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner claimed to have purchased
the property in question and therefore, this has been taken into account by the third
respondent while deciding the request made by the fifth respondent to cancel the
patta. This aspect has been discussed by the third respondent in the order dated
18.01.2018 and the relevant portion of the said order reads thus,
“ 6/ kDjhuh; jpU/enlrd; fpuak; bgw;w gj;jpuk; 31/07/2000 md;W
gjpt[f;F jhf;fyhfp ,Ug;gpDk;. Fiwt[ Kj;jpiuf; fl;lzk; fhuzkhf epYitapy;
itj;J 10/08/2001 md;W tpLtpf;fg;gl;ljhf bjhpatUfpwJ/ vjph; kDjhuh;
fpuak; bgw;wjw;fhd gj;jpu';fis ghprPypid bra;jjpy;. kDjhuh; jpU/enlrd;
gj;jpu gjpt[f;F jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L Fiwt[ Kj;jpiuf;fl;lzk; fhuzkhf epYitapy;
,Uf;Fk; fhyf;ffl;lj;jpy; (31/07/2000 ? 10/08/2001) enlrd; vd;gtUf;F
fpuak; mspj;j rj;a ehuhaz bul;o. vd;gth; jpU/ghyh$p vd;gtUf;F
28/08/2000 md;W gth; gj;jpuk; gjpt[ bra;jjd; mog;gilapy;. gj;jpu
vz;/1882-2000. ehs;;/28/08/2000 kw;Wk; 1884-2000. ehs;
28/08/2000 gjpt[ bra;ag;ggl;Ls;ssJk; bjhpatUfpwJ/ nkYk;
jpU/cwhpehj; vd;gth jpUkjp/gpugh ,Ujankhp vd;gthpd; bghJ mjpfhu
gj;jpuk;. jpU/enlrd; fpiuak; bgWtjw;F xU tUlk; Kd;djhfnt uj;J
bra;ag;ggl;Ltpl;lJ vdj; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ ,J bjhlh;ghf jpU/cwhpehj;
vd;gtuhy; rkh;g;gpj;j bghJ mjpfhu uj;J gj;jpu vz;/468-2000?id
ghprPyid bra;jjpy;. jpU/rj;jpa ehuhazd; vd;gtuhy; jpU/ghy;khpajh!;
vd;gtUf;F tH';fg;ggl;l bghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuk; 301-2000 uj;J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
bra;aag;gl;ljhf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkYk; ,g;gj;jpuk; 05/09/2000
md;W Vw;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sjhf bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ jpU/rj;jpa ehuhzah
bul;o vd;gtuhy; jpUkjp/gpugh ,Ujankhp vd;gtUf;F bghJ mjpfhuk;
mspf;fg;gl;Ls;s epiyapy;. ghy; khpajh!; vd;gthpd; bghJ mjpfhu
gj;jpuj;jpid uj;J bra;ag;gLtjhf bjhptpj;jpUg;gJ Kuz;ghlhf cs;sJ/ nkYk;
,e;j bghJ mjpfhu uj;J gj;jpuKk;. jpU/enlrd; vd;gth; fpuak;
Vw;gLj;jg;gl;L. Fiwt[ Kj;jpiuf; fl;lzk; fhuzkhf epYitapy; ,Ue;j fhy fl;lj;jpy;
Vw;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,e;epiyapy; jpU/ghyh$p vd;gtUf;F mspj;j ,uz;lhtJ bghJ
mjpfhu gj;jpuj;jpd; mog;gilapy; fpuak; bgw;w gj;jpu';fspd; bry;Yk;jd;id
Fwpj;J muR tHf;fwp”h; kw;Wk; gjpt[j; Jiwapd;. khtl;l gjpthsh;.
br';fy;gl;L mth;fsplk; fUj;J nfhug;ggl;lJ/”
17. Therefore, prima facie it has become clear that, on 31.07.2000 there was
a Sale Deed in favour of the fifth respondent for the entire property prior to which,
though some attempt has been made by the original owner of the property
Sathianarayana Reddy by executing the power in favour of one Prabha
Irudhayamary that seems to have been cancelled and after cancellation of the
same, and after lapse of one year, the sale seems to have been executed in favour
of the fifth respondent.
18. It is the further case of the petitioner that, the predecessor-in-title
claimed to have purchased a part of the property only through the power of
attorney holder one Prabha Irudhayamary. The said power had been cancelled well
before the Sale Deed was executed in favour of the fifth respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
19. Though it is the case and counter case of the fifth respondent as well as
the petitioner, neither the Revenue Authorities nor this Court in this proceedings,
can come to a conclusive opinion as to whose claim was right. Therefore, the issue
has already been relegated to the Civil Court, where a suit has been instituted by
the fifth respondent with various prayers and admittedly the suit is pending before
the concerned Civil Court. Therefore, it is for the Civil Court to take a conclusive
decision as to the plea raised by both sides with regard to the property in question.
20. In this context, it is further to be noted that, though the suit was
instituted in the year 2014 and the patta in question which is cancelled through the
impugned order issued in the year 2007, ie., well before the institution of the suit,
the actual sale is claimed to have been made in favour of the fifth respondent on
31.07.2000, that is seven years before the patta was issued. Therefore, there is
every justification on the part of the Revenue Authorities to interfere with the patta
granted in favour of the predecessor-in-title in the year 2007 because, in the year
2000 itself the entire property is claimed to have been purchased by the fifth
respondent and on that strength ie., the Sale Deed dated 31.07.2000, the fifth
respondent approached the Civil Court for various reliefs.
21. Therefore, the present change made in the revenue records by giving the
patta in favour of one third party like the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner would
be a superfluous one and therefore, when this was brought to the notice of the
Revenue Authorities, they rightly rectified the same and cancelled the patta by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
relegating the parties to go to Civil Court, where the suit is already pending to
agitate the issue and get relief.
22. The said fashion of deciding the issue raised before the Revenue
Authorities both by the third respondent and the second respondent, in the
considered opinion of this Court, is in tune with the various provisions of the Patta
Passbook Act, Revenue Standing Orders as well as the settled legal position in this
regard by a number of judgments of this Court.
23. Therefore, this Court feels that, there is absolutely no plausible reason to
interfere with the orders of the third respondent / original authority as well as the
second respondent / appellate authority, which are impugned herein. The writ
petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
24. However, it is made clear that, while deciding the issue raised in the suit
which was filed before the Civil Court concerned, the Civil Court shall not take into
account any of the findings either of the Revenue Authorities in the impugned
orders or of this Court in this order and uninfluenced by those findings, let the issue
raised before the Civil Court be decided by the Civil Court independently on its own
merits by evaluating the evidences to be adduced by both sides before the said Civil
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
14.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
KST
To
1.The District Collector
Office of the Collectorate
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
2.The District Revenue Officer
Kanchipuram District
Collectorate Office
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
3.The Sub Collector
Office of the Sub-Collector
Chenglepet.
4.The Tahsildar
Thirupporur Taluk
Thirupporur
Kanchipuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
kst
W.P.No.27031 of 2018
14.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
