Madras High Court
Jeyasri vs The District Collector on 12 January, 2022
W.P.Nos.17086 and 17518 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.Nos.17086 and 17518 of 2020
and
W.M.P.Nos.21151 and 21698 of 2020
Jeyasri ... Petitioner in WP.No.17086/2020
A.Govindasamy ... Petitioner in WP.No.17518/2020
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Chennai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Guindy, Chennai-32.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sholinganallur Taluk,
Chennai District.
4.D.Nirmala
5.G.Thirumoorthy ... Respondents (in both WPs)
Common Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.106. /2019/B1,
dated -.02.2019 (signed on 05.02.2019) and quash the same and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.17086 and 17518 of 2020
consequently direct the 3rd respondent to restore the patta in the name of
Petitioners' in respect of their properties situated at Pallikaranai Village,
Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in S.No.100/7 part,
Patta Nos:31690 and 18215, as per Patta New S.Nos.100/7A2 and 100/7A1
measuring an extent of 1339 sq.ft.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Pachaiyappan
(in both WPs)
For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Balathandayutham
Special Government Pleader
(in both WPs)
For R5 : Mr.V.Ramana Reddy
(in both WPs)
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in
Na.Ka.No.106. /2019/B1, dated -.02.2019 (signed on 05.02.2019) and
quash the same and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to restore the
patta in the name of petitioners' in respect of their properties situated at
Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in
S.No.100/7 part, Patta Nos:31690 and 18215, as per Patta New
S.Nos.100/7A2 and 100/7A1 measuring an extent of 1339 sq.ft.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.17086 and 17518 of 2020
2. The case of the petitioners are that the petitioner in
W.P.No.17086 of 2020 owned property comprised in S.No.100/7 part under
Patta No.31690 ad-measuring to an extent of 1306 sq.ft., situated at
Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District and the
petitioner in W.P.No.17518 of 2020 owned property comprised in
S.No.100/7 part under Patta No.18215 ad-measuring to an extent of 1339
sq.ft., situated at Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram
District. The petitioners' purchased the said properties by way of Sale Deeds
dated 28.06.2017 and 02.09.2002 registered vide Document Nos.6479 of
2017 and 4123 2002 respectively. While being so, on the instance of the 5 th
respondent, the 3rd respondent conducted enquiry to cancel the pattas on the
basis of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.378 of 1997 on the file
of the learned District Munsif at Alandur for permanent injunction in respect
of the subject properties. That too without issuing any notice to the
petitioners and without giving any opportunity of hearing to them, passed
the impugned order. By the impugned order, cancelled the pattas issued in
favour of the petitioners and cancelled all the sub division made in respect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.17086 and 17518 of 2020
of the subject properties and ordered to issue patta in favour of the 5th
respondent herein.
3. Though as against the order passed by the Tahsildar,
Sholinganallur Taluk, there is an appeal remedy under Section 12 of the
Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, the impugned order challenged
before this Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justices.
Therefore, the present writ petitions are very much maintainable under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. On perusal of the counter affidavit dated 07.01.2022 filed by
the 3rd respondent, revealed that originally the total extent of the property
ad-measuring to an extent of 7 cents comprised in S.No.100/7, Pallikaranai
Village, owned by Thayaramman wife of Natesa Naidu. Therefore, by the
Sale Deeds dated 28.06.2017 and 02.09.2002 registered vide Document
Nos.6479 of 2017 and 4123 of 2002, the petitioners purchased the
properties ad-measuring to an extent of 1306.5 and 1339 sq.ft from one
Amsammal and Gajalakshmi. Based on the sale deeds, the petitioners were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.17086 and 17518 of 2020
issued patta. The petitioners' purchased the subject properties in the
following transactions:-
Document Survey Extent Executant Claimant
Number Number
0911/1957 Muniammal Thayaramman W/o Mr.
100/7 7 cents
dated 10.04.1957 Vagaiyan Natesa Naidu
1170/1965 Thayaramman W/o Govindammal W/o
1007/ 7 cents
dated 23.04.1965 Mr. Natesa Naidu Madurai Mudaliar
0395/1976 Govindammal W/o Gajalakshmi W/o
100/7 7 cents
dated 09.06.1976 Madurai Mudaliar Rajasekaran
0051/2001
Gajalakshmi W/o Jayaseelan S/o
dated 29.01.2001 100/7 7 cents
Rajasekaran Parasuraman
POA
5890/2003 Gajalakshmi (Prl)
100/7 1306.5 S.ft. Amsammal
dated 15.12.2003 Jayaseelan (POA)
6479/2017 Mrs.Jeyasri Petitioner
100/7 1306.5 S.ft Amsammal
dated 28.06.2017 in W.P.No.17086/2020
4123/2002 100/7 Gajalakshmi (Prl) Govindasamy Petitioner
1339 S.ft
dated 02.09.2002 part Jayaseelan (POA) in W.P.No.17518/2020
5. While being so, the 5th respondent filed suit in O.S.No.378 of
1997 on the file of the learned District Munsif at Alandur for permanent
injunction as against one Rajendran, Ranganathan, Ravi Chettiar and
Gajalakshmi. The said suit was allowed on 10.11.2006. The petitioners'
vendor filed suit in O.S.No.347 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Alandur for declaration declaring that the Sale Deed dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.17086 and 17518 of 2020
01.04.1997 registered vide Document No.1587 of 1997 obtained by the 5th
respondent as null and void and also to cancel the decree of permanent
injunction granted in O.S.No.378 of 1997 dated 10.11.2006. The said suit
was allowed by the exparte decree dated 26.04.2012. However,
subsequently, the 5th respondent filed a set aside petition to set aside the
exparte decree and the same was allowed. Subsequently, the main suit itself
was dismissed for default.
6. On receipt of the representation from the 5th respondent, the 3rd
respondent passed the impugned order thereby cancelled the pattas issued in
favour of the following persons for the following lands:-
Sl.No. Survey Extent Name of the Registered holder
Number
1 100/7A1 104 Sq.metres A. Govindasamy S/o N.Arumugam
2 100/7A2 90 Sq.metres Jayasri Wife of Vivekanandan
3 100/7B 300 Sq.metres Rajeshkumar Willam son of D.William
7. Thereafter, the petitioner in W.P.No.17086 of 2020 also filed
suit in O.S.No.28 of 2020 for declaration declaring that the sale deed dated
01.04.1997 registered vide document No.1587 of 1987 executed in favour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.17086 and 17518 of 2020
of the 5th respondent herein is null and void and it is pending on the file of
the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur. That apart, the 5 th respondent
filed Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.30924 of 2018 to dispose his
representations dated 14.09.2018 and 18.09.2018. This Court by an order
dated 01.02.2019 directed the 3rd respondent herein to consider the
representations of the 5th respondent, after issuance of notice to the other
private respondents viz., the petitioners herein and after giving opportunity
of hearing to them, pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.
8. Thereafter, the 5th respondent made another representation
dated 05.01.2019. On the said representation, the 3rd respondent conducted
enquiry, without issuing any notice to the petitioners and other patta holders
in respect of the subject lands and without giving opportunity of hearing to
them, passed the impugned order.
9. On this sole ground, the impugned order cannot be sustained
and it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order in
Na.Ka.No.106. /2019/B1, dated -.02.2019 (signed on 05.02.2019) is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.17086 and 17518 of 2020
quashed. The representation submitted by the 5th respondent dated
05.01.2019 is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration.
The 3rd respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioners, 5 th
respondent and other counter parties, if any and after giving opportunity of
hearing to them, pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. It is
made clear that all the parties concerned are at liberty to submit all the
relevant documents for consideration. It is also made clear that now the
petitioners filed suit in O.S.No.28 of 2020 and it is pending on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur, without any interim order.
10. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
12.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.17086 and 17518 of 2020
To
1.The District Collector,
Chennai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Guindy, Chennai-32.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sholinganallur Taluk,
Chennai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.17086 and 17518 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
dm
W.P.Nos.17086 and 17518 of 2020
12.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
