Madras High Court
Dr.R.Alauddin vs The Commissioner on 22 June, 2021
W.A.No.2005 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.2005 of 2019
C.M.P.No.13571 of 2019
1.Dr.R.Alauddin
2.Zohural Begum
3.Razia Begum
4.Azeema Begum
5.Madina Begum
6.Zaibunnissa Begum
7.Shamshad Begum
8.R.Ameeruddin
9.Sirajunnissa Begum
10.Akthar Begum
11.Ifthar Begum
12.R.Rafiquddin
13.K.Razack
14.Md.Zubair
15.Zeheka .. Appellants
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai - 600 003.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Land and Estate Department,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai - 600 003.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2005 of 2019
3.The Revenue Officer,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai - 600 003. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
08.02.2019 made in W.P.No.2879 of 2011.
For Appellants : Mr.M.K.Hidayatullah
For Respondents : Ms.Karthikaa Ashok
Senior Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This case has got a chequered history. The dispute has been
started by late P.A.Rahman Sheriff, who was the original allottee over
the payment for a sum of Rs.165.25. According to him, he has paid it
and according to the appellants, it has been paid belatedly in the year
1981. There are communications right from the year 1974 onwards.
2.After the demise of the said original allottee, requests have
been made for transfer in the name of the appellants. By the
impugned order, the appellants were informed that they have to pay a
sum of Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft. being the guideline value for executing the
sale deed. Challenging the same, the appellants, who filed the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2005 of 2019
petition on the earlier occasion, by which, the respondents were
directed to consider the representation, came before this Court once
again. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition inter alia
holding that the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into.
Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
3.As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant,
the foundational facts are not in dispute. In the counter affidavit filed
before the learned single Judge, it has been stated that even the
original allottee has not proved his title and he has not made any
request seeking execution of sale deed.
4.Incidentally, it has been stated that the original documents
have not been produced and the question of the legal heirs of the
original allottee also will have to be seen. Therefore, the issue qua the
payment made though a paltry sum of Rs.165.26 as on 1974 has not
been denied or disputed. However, by the impugned order, the
respondents are seeking a sum of Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft.
5.Once the correspondences between the original allottee and
the respondents are denied or disputed by way of counter affidavit,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2005 of 2019
the finding of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. We find
even the original allottee P.A.Rahman Sheriff has sent a communication
on 16.11.1981 asking for execution of the sale deed after making
payment. As on today, no steps have been taken either to cancel it or
for asking the payment of excess amount. It is only on the request
made by the appellants such a stand has been taken afresh by the
respondents. To put it differently, had the original sum of Rs.165.26
been paid by the deceased P.A.Rahman Sheriff, the respondents would
have executed the sale deed way back in the year 1974 itself. We are
dealing with the case where substantial amount has been paid, even
according to the respondents, the dispute was only with respect to the
payment of Rs.165.26. Therefore, it is absolutely unfair to fix a sum
of Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft., by the impugned communication dated
17.11.2010.
6.In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the
order of the learned single Judge and the impugned communication
dated 17.11.2010. We quite appreciate the issue raised with respect
to the entitlement of the appellants being the descendants and being
the legal heirs of the original allottee. One has to see the position on
the premise that the sale deed having been executed in the year 1974
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2005 of 2019
in favour of the original allottee and thereafter, the persons who are
entitled to. This is a matter, which the respondents will have to look
into.
7.In such view of the matter, respondents 2 and 3 are directed
to conduct an enquiry only with respect to the legal heirs of the
deceased late P.A.Rahman Sheriff and thereafter complete the
formality of executing the sale deed. The needful will have to be
done within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment. We may also note that the allotment was made in
1960 and the deceased and his family members are in possession
without any hindrance till now. The appellants are also directed to
produce all the documents in original, which are available with them,
at the time of enquiry.
8.The writ appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
22.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
raa/mmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2005 of 2019
To
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai - 600 003.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Land and Estate Department,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai - 600 003.
3.The Revenue Officer,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai - 600 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2005 of 2019
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.2005 of 2019
22.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
