Madras High Court

K.Palanisamy vs The District Collector on 18 June, 2021

                                                                         W.P. No. 233 of 2018


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS


                                                 DATED: 18.06.2021

                                                       CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

                                                 W.P. No. 233 of 2018
                     K.Palanisamy                                       ... Petitioner

                                                            -vs-
                     1. The District Collector,
                        Nilgiris District, Nilgiris.

                     2. The Tahsildar,
                        Coonoor, Coonoor Taluk,
                        Nilgiris District.

                     3. The Head Surveyor,
                        Coonoor Taluk,
                        Coonoor, Nilgiris.

                     4. The Superintendent of Police,
                        Udagamandalam, Nilgiris.

                     5. The Inspector of Police,
                        Wellington Police Station,
                        Wellington, Coonoor,
                        Nilgiris.

                     6. The Executive Officer,
                        Wellington Cantnment Board,
                        Wellington, Nilgiris.

                     7. P. Arumugam                                     ... Respondents

                     1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                W.P. No. 233 of 2018


                     PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the
                     respondents 2 and 3 with the assistance of the respondents 4 and 5 to
                     survey, measure the lands comprised in Survey No.37/1A2A1, New
                     Survey No.492/15 situated at Coonoor Village, Coonoor Taluk, Nilgiri
                     District and effect subdivision and grant separate Patta in the name of the
                     petitioner.


                                       For Petitioner    :   Mr.R.Rajarajan
                                       For Respondents   :   Mr.Richardson Wilson
                                                             Counsel for Govt. for R1 to R5
                                                             Mr.Vijayan
                                                             for M/s.King & Patridge for R6
                                                             No appearance for R7


                                                        ORDER

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing

the respondents 2 and 3 with the assistance of the respondents 4 and 5 to

survey, measure the lands comprised in Survey No.37/1A2A1, New

Survey No.492/15 situated at Coonoor Village, Coonoor Taluk, Nilgiri

District and effect subdivision and grant separate Patta in the name of the

petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 233 of 2018

2. The landed property in S.No.37/1A2A1, New Survey No.492/15

situated at Coonoor Village, Coonoor Taluk, Nilgiri District is the

subject matter.

3. The said property originally belongs to the seventh respondent,

from whom, the petitioner has purchased the same by valid sale

consideration.

4. Though the said property was purchased by the petitioner from

the vendor, i.e., seventh respondent, after some time he seems to have

raised the issue that he has not sold the property with sound mind and in

this context, since he raised an objection with regard to the sale, the

parties have approached the Civil Court by filing a Civil Suit in

O.S. No. 4 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coonoor.

The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by judgment and

decree dated 18.09.2003.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 233 of 2018

5. According to the petitioner, as against the said judgment and

decree of the Civil Court, no appeal has been filed. Therefore, it has

become final.

6. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner seems to have made a

request to the Revenue Authorities to measure the land to identify the

four boundaries. However, when an attempt was made by the Revenue

Authorities to measure the land as claimed by the petitioner, it seems

that, there has been a stiff resistance from the seventh respondent.

Therefore, in this regard, the Revenue Authorities have enquired the

matter and during the enquiry, it seems that, the seventh respondent has

given a categorical statement that, at the time of executing the sale deed

in respect of the property in question in favour of the petitioner, he was

not in sound mind . However, in order to establish the said position, he

did not have any medical documents in support of such plea and insofar

as the sale executed in the year 1994 in favour of the petitioner,

admittedly, the seventh respondent has not taken any steps to cancel the

sale deed. These aspects can be culled out from the statement given by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 233 of 2018

the seventh respondent to the Revenue Authorities during the enquiry on

04.01.2019.

7. Though the said development has taken place, so far the request

of the petitioner made through his representation dated 24.11.2017 to

measure the land in question to identify the four boundaries, is not

materialized. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

8. Reiterating the aforesaid, Mr.R.Rajarajan, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the Revenue Authorities

having completed the enquiry for their full satisfaction with the

ownership of the property in question, went to measure the land pursuant

to the representation given by the petitioner in this regard in the year

2017. However, because of the stiff resistance or objection made by the

seventh respondent, the Revenue Authorities were not able to move

further. Therefore, a suitable direction can be given to the Revenue

Authorities to act upon to measure the land and in this context, if any

security is required, the assistance of the Police can also be taken, that is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 233 of 2018

why, the Police authorities have been arrayed as party respondents in this

Writ Petition.

9. On the other hand, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned counsel for

the Government appearing for the first to fifth respondents has relied

upon the following averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the

second respondent:

"5. Regarding the averments made in paras 6 to 9 of the petitioner's affidavit, I submit that it is true that the petitioner has put up construction in the extent purchased by him from the 7th respondent and the petitioner has requested the respondents 1 to 3 for the sub division of the petitioner premises and however the sub division could not be effected in view of the obstructions and disturbances made by the 7th respondent. Aggrieved by the above obstructions of the 7th respondent, this writ petitioner came forward with the above Writ Petition for effecting subdivision and for the grant of separate patta in the name of the petitioner and the Honourable High Court of Judicature at

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 233 of 2018

Madras was pleased to pass an interim order dated 13.12.2018 in W.P. No. 233 of 2018 with a direction directing me to conduct Preliminary enquiry and a file a counter affidavit.

6. I submit that a Preliminary enquiry was conducted at my Office on 04.01.2019 by inviting the petitioner and the 7th respondent and recorded the statement given by both the parties.

In the statement recorded from the petitioner, the petitioner has categorically stated about the purchase of the petition mentioned property through valid documents and produced the Registered Sale deed dated 29.12.1994 along with the parental document. In the statement recorded from the 7th respondent, he has stated that he was not in sound state of mind at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 29.12.1994 in favour of the petitioner and however he has not produced any document / medical certificate showing that he was not in sound state of mind. The 7th respondent also admitted himself in the statement that he has not field any suit / petition to declare the registered sale deed dated 29.12.1994 as null and void, before any Court. When the 7th

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 233 of 2018

respondent has been asked to produce the parental document, he failed to do so, since the original parental document is now in the hands of the Petitioner. The statements recorded on 04.01.2019 from both the parties are produced herewith and marked as a document, which is self explanatory."

10. The learned counsel for the Government also relied upon the

statement given by the seventh respondent before the second respondent /

Tahsildar on 04.01.2019, which reads thus:

ePyfpup khtl;lk;. Fd;D}u; tl;lk;. f/vz; 2-128 ey;yg;gd; bjU. mUt';fhL vd;Dk; Kftupapy; trpj;J tUk; jpU/gp// MWKfk;. j/bg/nf/gHdpag;gd; Mfpa ehd; ,d;W (04/01/2019) Fd;D}u; tl;lhr;rpau; Kd; bfhLf;Fk; thf;FK:yk;/ @ehd; nkw;fz;l Kftupapy; trpj;J tUfpnwd;/ ePyfpup khtl;lk;. Fd;D}u; tl;lk;. mUt';fhL. ey;yg;gd; bjUtpy; trpj;J tUk; jpU/ nf/gHdpr;rhkp. j/bg/fUg;gz;zd; vd;gtu; Fd;D}u; tl;lk;. Fd;D}u; U:uy; fpuhkk; giHa g[y vz;/37-1A2A1-w;F rhu;ghd g[jpa g[y vz; 492-15=y; vdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l 5 brz;l; epyj;jpid mse;J juf; nfhup khz;gik brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; W.P. No. 233 of 2018d;go tHf;F bjhlu;e;Js;shu;/ ,jid cupa tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L vjpu; cWjp Mtzk; jahu; bra;J jhf;fy; bra;ak [ hW Fd;D}u;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 233 of 2018

tl;lhr;rpaUf;F Mizaplg;gl;lijj; bjhlu;e;J. nkw;go epyk; bjhlu;ghd gpur;rid bjhlu;ghf ,d;W (04/01/2019) khiy 4/00 kzpastpy; Fd;D}u;

                                   tl;lhr;rpaupd;         neuo       tprhuizf;F              M$uhndd;/
                                   ,J       bjhlu;ghf              fle;J           28/12/2018       md;;W
                                   tUtha;j;Jiw             K:yk;     gpur;ridf;Fupa              g[yj;jid
                                   neuoahf      Ma;t[k;       bra;ag;gl;lJ/              nkYk;     Fd;D}u;

tl;lk;. Fd;D}u; U:uy; fpuhkk; giHa g[y vz;/ 37- 1A2A1?w;F rhu;ghd g[jpa g[y vz;/492-15y; vdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l 5 brz;l; epyk; cs;sJ/ ,e;j 5 brz;l; epyj;jpid msg;gjw;F ehd; Ml;nrgid bjuptpf;fpnwd;/ Vbdd;why; nkw;go epykhdJ nghypahf ehd; Raepidt[ ,y;yhj bghGJ vdf;nf bjupahky; jpU/nf/gHdpr;rhkp. j/bg/fUg;gz;zd; vd;gtUf;F fle;j 1994?k; tUlk; Fd;D}u; rhu;gjpthsu; mYtyfj;jpy; gj;jpug;gjpt[ bra;J bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ gj;jput[ gjpt[ bra;j bghGJ ehd; Raepidt[ ,y;iy vd;gjw;fhd kUj;Jtr; rhd;W VJk; jw;rkak; vd;dplk; ,y;iy/ nkw;go epyk; bjhlu;ghd mry; Mtz';fs; VJk; jw;rkak; vd;dplk; ,y;iy/ nkYk; ehd; Raepidt[ ,y;yhj bghGJ fle;j 1994?k; tUlk; Fd;D}u; rhu;gjpthsu; mYtyfj;jpy; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l gj;jpuj;ij ,uj;J bra;a nfhup ,Jehs; tiu ehd; ve;j tHf;ifa[k;

ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy/ gj;jput[ gjpt[ bra;j bghGJ ehd; Raepidt[ ,y;iy vd;gjw;fhd kUj;Jtr; rhd;nwh kw;Wk; nkw;go epyk; bjhlu;ghd mry; Mtz';fisnah ,d;W eilbgWk; tl;lhr;rpau; neuo tprhuizapy;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 233 of 2018

vd;dhy; rku;g;gpf;f ,aytpy;iy vd bjuptpj;Jf;

                                   bfhs;fpnwd;/
                                        nkw;fz;lthW               ehd;          brhd;d
                                   thf;FK:yk; vdJ RaepidnthL mspf;Fk;
                                   thf;FK:yk;       MFk;/     vd;dhy;    nkw;fz;lthW

brhy;yg;gl;l tptu';fs; midj;Jk; cz;ik vdt[k;. cz;ikf;F g[wk;ghdit vdj;

                                   bjupa          te;jhy;       murpd;        midj;J
                                   eltof;iffSf;Fk;             fl;LgLntd;         vdt[k;
                                   cWjp mspf;fpnwd;/@

11. By relying upon the documents and averments made in the

counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the Government would submit

that, absolutely, there is no issue as to the ownership of the land in

question as the same has been established by the petitioner by sale deed

as well as the decree of the Civil Court and when enquiry was conducted,

it is the case of the seventh respondent that, he had not executed the sale

deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1994 with sound mind,

however, there has been no document to establish the said case from the

medical side. Therefore, the objection raised by the seventh respondent

can be easily over ruled and the respondent, i.e., Revenue Authorities can

very well act upon the representation of the of the petitioner to measure

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 233 of 2018

the land.

12. Though, at some point of time, it seems that, the seventh

respondent appeared party-in-person, subsequently, he has not come

forward to appear before this Court. Even today also, there is no

representation for him.

13. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed

before this Court.

14. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, there has been a Civil Court decree in favour

of the petitioner by the Competent Court passed on 18.09.2003, that is

based on the sale deed effected in the year 1994 in favour of the

petitioner.

15. Those documents make it clear that, the petitioner is the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 233 of 2018

absolute owner of the property in question and this decision has also

been accepted by the Revenue Authorities, as per their statement made in

the second respondent counter in para Nos.5&6 as has been quoted

herein above.

16. When that being the position, there can be no further

impediment to the Revenue Authorities to measure the land in question

as per the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11.2017 and

accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to seek for a Mandamus as prayed

for.

17. In view of the aforestated, this Court is inclined to dispose of

this Writ Petition with the following orders:

"(i) That there shall be a direction to the second respondent / Tahsildar as well as the third respondent / Head Surveyor to act upon on the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11.2017 for measuring the land in question after collecting the necessary fee to that aspect from the petitioner

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 233 of 2018

(ii) and in this regard, if any objection is expected from the seventh respondent, it is open to the second respondent to take the assistance of the Police / fifth respondent and accordingly, the measurement work shall be undertaken and final order shall be passed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."