A.Kaliyaperumal vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 12640 Mad

                                                           W.P.No.14312 of 2018
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

                                   DATED : 29.06.2021

                                        CORAM :

                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

                                  W.P.No.14312 of 2018


A.Kaliyaperumal                                                  ...     Petitioner

                                        -Vs-


1.The District Collector,
 Villupuram.

2. The Thasildar,
  Villupuram.

3. Kokilambal

4. Bagyalakshmi

5. Nandakumar

6. Ramkumar                                         ...    Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the patta in
favour of the petitioner in respect of the property in Survey No.260/1-42.50 acres at
Sendhanur Village, Villupuram Taluk by considering the representation given by the
petitioner dated 5.5.2018. (Prayer amended vide order dated 26.03.2021 made in WMP
No.20525 of 2018 in W.P.No.14312 of 2018 by SSSRJ).


                For Petitioner     :    Mr.N.Suresh
                For Respondents    :    M/s. Akila Rajendran
                                        Government Counsel For RR1 & 2


                                       ORDER

W.P.No.14312 of 2018 The prayer sought for herein is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing

the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the

property in Survey No.260/1- 42.50 acres at Sendhanur Village, Villupuram Taluk by

considering the representation given by the petitioner dated 5.5.2018.

2. The landed property in S.No.260/1 at Sendhanur Village, Villupuram Taluk and

District is the subject matter herein. According to the petitioner, the property originally

belonged to one Poorani Ammal, from whom he purchased the property by a registered

Sale Deed in the year 1983. Pursuant to the said sale, the petitioner claimed to have

been in possession and enjoyment of the property and accordingly he applied for patta

and that was also considered by the Revenue Authorities, where they have given patta in

Patta No.75 dated 15.02.2015 in favour of the petitioner.

3. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, he came to know that, in the year

2018, patta had been issued in favour of the private respondents 3 to 6 in respect of the

same property on 14.04.2018. Therefore, in order to cancel the other patta issued in

favour of the third party, which according to the petitioner has been issued without any

notice to the petitioner, he has given a representation dated 05.05.2018 to the

respondents to conduct an enquiry and cancel the patta issued in favour of the private

respondents in Patta No.679 dated 14.04.2018 and since the said representation has not

been considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ

petition with the aforesaid prayer.

4. Heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would

submit that, the landed property in question has been purchased by the petitioner W.P.No.14312 of 2018 through a valid sale deed dated 21.09.1983. It has been registered as a document in the

concerned Registrar Office and by virtue of the sale deed, the petitioner had become the

owner of the property and had been in possession and enjoyment of the property all

along.

5. Though subsequently patta also has been issued in favour of the petitioner on

15.02.2015, of late the petitioner came to know in the year 2018 only that, patta issued in

favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on 14.04.2018 and it has been re-issued in

favour of the private respondents ie., respondents 3 to 6 herein. Therefore, in order to

cancel the same, representation though was given by the petitioner on 05.05.2018, the

said representation since was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner had no

other option except to file the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer and hence

the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks such issuance of a writ of Mandamus as

prayed for.

6. However Ms.Akila Rajendran, learned Government Counsel appearing for the

official respondents has relied upon the following averments made in the counter

affidavit.

“5. It is submitted that the Respondent deny the allegations made by the petitioner in his affidavit. The fact the case is one Mrs.Unnamalai, W/o.Mr.Kothandapani sold the property to an extent of Acre, 42 Cents comprised in S.No.260 to and in favour of Mrs.Poorani Ammal @ Unnamalai, W/o.Mr.Pandurangan. The said Document was executed to the value of Rs.7,000/- and the same was registered as Document W.P.No.14312 of 2018 No.1473 of 1982 before the Joint-1, SRO, Villupuram. On the very same day another one Agreement was executed between the same parties and the said Agreement was also registered as Document No.1474 of 1982. As per the said Agreement, the said Mrs.Unnamalai has returned Rs.100/- to Poorani Ammal and balance a sum of Rs.6,900/- will be paid within a period from 17.10.1987 to 16.10.1989, the said Unnamalai comply the said condition pursuant to that the Poorani Ammal has to give back the property to Unnamalai. Thereafter, the said Unnamalai was died on 12.11.1985. In the meanwhile Mr.Kaliyaperumal, petitioner herein has purchased the said property from Mrs.Poorani Ammal.

6. It is submitted that after the demise of said Mrs.Unnamalai, her son on Mr.Gnanavel filed a Suit in O.S.No.1059 of 1989 before the District Munsif Court, Villupuram, against the Mrs.Poorani Ammal and Kaliyaperumal, seeking for Specific Performance to execute the sale deed and the same was allowed on 21.02.1991. Subsequent to the order passed by the District Munsif Court, Poorani Ammal and Kaliyaperumal has not come forward to sell the property. Hence the District Judge, Villupuram has executed the sale deed in favour of Gnanavel, (i.e S/o. Unnamalai, Original Owner).

7. It is submitted that the said Gnanavel was died, after the demise of Gnanavel, his legal heirs namely Mrs.Kokilampal, W/o. Late Gnanavel, G.Backiyalakshmi, D/o. Late Gnanavel and G.Nandakumar, S/o. Late Gnanavel and G.Ram Kumar, S/o. Late Gnanavel Respondent 3 to 6 herein made an application before the Revenue Authorities to change their name in Patta, based on the sale deed executed by the District Court nd

Villupuram the 2 Respondent issued Patta in favour of the Respondent 3 to 6.

W.P.No.14312 of 2018

8. It is submitted that sale deed was executed by the District Judge, District Munsif Court in the year of 1994 itself. The Respondents 3 to 6 herein has made representation to change their name in patta. As per nd

the sale deed executed by the District Judge, Villupuram, the 2 Respondent changed the name of Respondent 3 to 6 in Patta. If the petitioner aggrieved on the order passed by the District Judge in O.S.No.1059 of 1989, petitioner has to prefer an appeal.”

7. By relying upon these averments, Ms.Akila Rajendran, learned Government

Counsel would submit that, no doubt the petitioner's vendor Poorani Ammal purchased

the property from Mrs.Unnamalai, W/o Kothandapani and on the same day there was an

agreement for sale executed between the said parties ie., Unnamalai and Poorani Ammal.

Pursuant to the said agreement of sale, some amount has been paid to the said

Unnamalai by Poorani Ammal and before the remaining amount was paid, it seems that

the said Unnamalai died. Therefore, the legal heirs, who are the present private

respondents stepped into the shoes of the said Unnamalai and filed a suit in O.S.No.1059

of 1989 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Villupuram seeking specific performance

against the said Poorani Ammal as well as the petitioner, who has been the subsequent

purchaser of the property in question from the said Poorani Ammal.

8. The said suit was decreed. Subsequently, since the defendants therein did not

come forward to execute the sale deed as per the decree, the Court had come forward to

the rescue of the plaintiffs and they executed the sale deed in favour of the private

respondents in the year 1994. Therefore, the private respondents 3 to 6 having got the

title over the property in question by way of the sale deed executed by the Court, seems W.P.No.14312 of 2018 to have applied to the Revenue Authorities for issuance of patta and that was considered

by the Revenue Tahsildar, who, after having gone through all the documents including the

Civil Court decree as well as the sale deed executed by the Civil Court, has decided to

cancel the patta in favour of the petitioner and re-issue the same in favour of the

respondents 3 to 6 and therefore, the said issuance of patta is strictly in consonance with

the Civil Court decree as well as the sale deed executed by the Civil Court in favour of the

private respondents and the same need not be cancelled or disturbed. Accordingly, the

plea raised by the petitioner cannot be considered in favour of the petitioner. Making

these submissions, learned Government Counsel seeks dismissal of this Writ Petition.

9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the

materials placed on record.

10. No doubt, the petitioner might have purchased the property from the said

Poorani Ammal who was the vendor of the petitioner and the said sale deed also had

been registered in the concerned Registrar Office as Document No.1473 of 1982 on the

file of the Joint-I Sub Registrar Office, Villupuram.

11. However, it is to be noted that, on the very same day, a sale agreement

between the parties ie., the vendor of the petitioner and the erstwhile owner Unnamalai

was entered upon, which was also registered in the same Registrar Office as Document

No.1474 of 1982. As per the terms and conditions of the said sale deed, some sale

consideration might have been paid by the erstwhile owner. However, before paying the

remaining amount the said Unnamalai expired and in the meanwhile, Poorani Ammal W.P.No.14312 of 2018 bequeathed the property in favour of the petitioner by way of a Sale Deed as referred to

above.

12. Subsequently, after coming to know these factors, the legal heirs of the said

Unnamalai, who are the private respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.1059 of 1989

before the District Munsif Court, Villupuram seeking for a judgment and decree for

specific performance. The said suit also decreed in favour of the plaintiffs who are private

respondents herein.

13. Subsequent to the decree and judgment, since the defendants therein ie., the

petitioner and his vendor Poorani Ammal did not come forward to execute the sale deed,

the Court itself has executed the sale deed as per law and this had taken place in the year

1994 itself.

14. Therefore, the private respondents have become the owners of the property in

question as early as in 1994 and pursuant to the said action, since the private

respondents have become the owners of the property they seems to have approached the

revenue authorities ie., the Tahsildar for issuance of patta in their name.

15. The second respondent also, having considered all these developments and

after verifying the documents vi., the Civil Court Decree as well as the Sale Deed

executed by the Court in favour of the private respondents, has decided to effect the

mutation in the revenue records. By thus, the Tahsildar has issued patta to and in favour

of the respondents 3 to 6 and that is being questioned by the petitioner by way of a W.P.No.14312 of 2018 representation dated 05.05.2018.

16. In this context it is a fact that, though the petitioner was a party in the Civil

Court, according to the petitioner, no notice has been served and it was an exparte

decree. He would also submit that, whatever be the reasons for changing patta in favour

of the third party, notice should have been given by the Tahsildar to the petitioner also

and for these two reasons the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the patta

issued in favour of the private respondents shall not stand in the legal scrutiny.

Therefore, the same has to be cancelled and in this regard, the request made by the

petitioner dated 05.05.2018 has to be considered.

17. This Court is not impressed with the said submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, before passing any order changing the patta by way

of mutation in the revenue records by deleting or inducting any name in the patta,

certainly notice should have been given to the person in whose name the patta originally

stood. However, in the case in hand, though patta was issued on 15.02.2015 based on

the sale deed dated 21.09.1983, subsequently it has been brought to the notice of the

revenue authorities that there has been a Civil Court decree in favour of the private

respondents for the same property, pursuant to which the Court itself has executed a sale

deed in favour of them and with the strength of the Civil Court decree as well as the sale

deed executed by the Civil Court, since the private respondents approached the revenue

authorities and on satisfaction of the documents produced by them, the Tahsildar acted

upon to effect mutation of the revenue records in favour of the private respondents. W.P.No.14312 of 2018

18. In this regard the issuance of notice to the petitioner would be an empty

formality as the petitioner can never improve his case, for the simple reason that,

admittedly even till date the petitioner or his vendor have not chosen to file any appeal

against the judgment and decree made long years back ie., in the year 1994.

19. Therefore, even on the date when the patta was mutated in favour of the

private respondents ie., on 14.04.2018, 24 years have gone by after passing of the Civil

Court decree as well as the execution of the sale deed in favour of the private

respondents. Therefore, that position cannot be erased easily by the petitioner and

therefore, even if notice had been given by the Tahsildar before the issuance of the patta

in favour of the private respondents, the position would not have been changed and

therefore the theory of empty formality can very well be invoked in this case and can be

pressed into service.

20. In that view of the matter, the non issuance of notice to the petitioner before

issuing patta dated 14.04.2018 in favour of the private respondents, cannot be fatal to

the said proceedings dated 14.04.2018 and therefore, on that ground the petitioner

cannot successfully challenge the issuance of patta in favour of the private respondents.

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner cannot successfully make out

any case to seek for a mandamus to consider his plea dated 05.05.2018 by way of a

representation and accordingly this Court feels that, this writ petition fails and the hence

it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. W.P.No.14312 of 2018 29.06.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KST

To

1.The District Collector, Villupuram.

2. The Thasildar, Villupuram.

W.P.No.14312 of 2018 R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

kst

W.P.No.14312 of 2018

29.06.2021