Madras High Court
D.Rajesh vs The Director Of Survey & ... on 3 August, 2022
W.P.No.7560 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.7560 of 2013
and W.M.P.No.1 of 2013
D.Rajesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Survey & Settlements,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Town Settlement Scheme,
Alandur Municipal Office,
Alandur,
Chennai – 600 016.
3.S.P.Velayutham ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
2nd respondent made in t/gp/bjh/ 45/2011, dated 18.11.2011 and quash the
same insofar as the petitioner's land in T.S.Nos.17 and 19 are concerned.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7560 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.T.R.Rajaraman
For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan
Government Advocate
for R1 and R2
Mr.M.Jeeva for R3
ORDER
This writ petition was filed challenging the impugned proceedings of
the 2nd respondent dated 18.11.2011, whereby, the name of the 3rd
respondent was incorporated in the relevant records and a direction was
given for grant of patta in his name.
2.The case of the petitioner is that his father Devarajan was the
absolute owner of the lands comprised in T.S.Nos.17/2, 17/3, 17/4, 17/5,
17/6 and 19 and the Tahsildar, Alandur also issued patta in his name for all
these properties. That apart, the father of the petitioner was also in
possession and enjoyment of all the above said lands from the year 2003
onwards. While so, the Deputy Tahsildar of Alandur, during the year 2008,
without notice to the father of the petitioner, changed the name of the land
holder and issued patta in the name of the 3rd respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7560 of 2013
3.The same was challenged by the father of the petitioner before the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram by way of an appeal and the Revenue
Divisional Officer through proceedings dated 03.09.2011, cancelled the
patta issued in the name of the 3rd respondent and directed the restoration
of the petitioner's father's name in the revenue records.
4.The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent without
any power or jurisdiction proceeded to issue the impugned proceedings
dated 18.11.2011 and directed the name of the 3rd respondent to be added
in the relevant revenue records and further directed issuance of patta in the
name of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ
petition was filed before this Court.
5.The 3rd respondent had claimed the right over the above said
properties by virtue of a Settlement Deed dated 11.10.2008 that is said to
have been executed in favour of the 3rd respondent by his son. The son of
the 3rd respondent became the owner of the subject properties by virtue of
a Sale Deed dated 05.07.2007 which was executed by the 3rd respondent in
his capacity as the Power of Attorney Agent of Deenadalaya Reddy and
Venkata Krishnan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7560 of 2013
6.The sale of the property by the 3rd respondent in his capacity as an
agent became a subject matter of challenge and ultimately, the matter
reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v.
S.P.Velayutham and Others reported in 2022 (3) CTC 754 categorically
found that the 3rd respondent never had the power to sell the properties
and accordingly, the registration of the Sale Deed was cancelled on the
ground that the Registrar failed to properly exercise his statutory duty,
while entertaining the document without properly verifying as to whether
any power of sale was given in the Power of Attorney document that was
executed in favour of the 3rd respondent. Thus, the Sale Deed executed by
the 3rd respondent became non est in the eye of law.
7.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned
Government Advocate also brought to the notice of this Court the
proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 28.04.2017, whereby,
the concerned authority has declared that the subject properties belonged
to the father of the petitioner and directed the patta for the subject
properties to be restored in the name of the father of the petitioner. As a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7560 of 2013
consequence, the earlier order passed by the 2nd respondent was held to be
illegal. Pursuant to the above order, necessary corrections have been made
in the Town Survey Land Register and the name of the father of the
petitioner has been restored for all the survey numbers except S.No.17/2.
The learned Government Advocate submitted that the name of the father of
the petitioner will be incorporated even in this survey number also very
shortly.
8.In view of the above development, the grievance of the petitioner
has been redressed and the revenue records have been restored back to
the name of the father of the petitioner. In view of the same, the impugned
proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 18.11.2011, becomes non est in
the eye of law.
9.In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.08.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7560 of 2013
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
To
1.The Director of Survey & Settlements,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Town Settlement Scheme,
Alandur Municipal Office,
Alandur,
Chennai – 600 016.
W.P.No.7560 of 2013
and W.M.P.No.1 of 2013
03.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
