Madras High Court
D.Katturaja vs The District Collector on 24 November, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.23080 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Writ Petition (MD) No.23080 of 2022
D.Katturaja .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The District Collector,
Madurai.
2.The Tahsildar,
Melur Taluk,
Madurai District.
3.M.Vaiyapuri .. Respondents
Prayer:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to
consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.06.2022, within the time
frame to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Selvaraj
For Respondents 1 and 2: Mrs.K.Christy Theboral
Additional Government Pleader
For 3rd Respondent : Mr.M.Kannan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.(MD)No.23080 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing
the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 22.06.2022,
within a time frame.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the property comprised in S.No.
596/9B2, measuring an extent of 59 cents, situated at Karungalakudi Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai District, belongs to the third respondent, who was
running a Aluminum Factory in the said property, and subsequently, it was
closed. While the factory was in operation, one Raja, a labour of the third
respondent suffered an injury and therefore, he filed a Petition before the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour under the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923, against the third respondent in W.C.No.7 of 1993 and the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour awarded a compensation of Rs.77,993/- together
with interest and the total amount payable is Rs.1,09,420/-. After passing the
said award, it was referred to the first respondent for recovery of compensation
from the third respondent, by invoking the provisions of the Revenue
Recovery Act. Subsequently, the second respondent had initiated the recovery
proceedings as directed by the first respondent.
3. According to the petitioner, the second respondent had conducted
public auction with respect to the above said land on 05.04.2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The
W.P.(MD)No.23080 of 2022
petitioner had participated in the said auction and was declared as highest
bidder. Subsequently, the petitioner paid Rs.55,315/-, which was 15% of the
total amount i.e., Rs.3,68,750/-. The petitioner had also paid the remaining
amount to the second respondent. Thereafter, the sale was confirmed by the
first respondent on 03.10.2005 and a sale certificate was issued in Form VIII
under Section 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The Sub-Registrar,
Karungalakudi, had effected changes with respect to the sale certificate issued
to the petitioner in their Registers on 26.10.2005 and the revenue records were
also changed in the name of the petitioner. While so, the third respondent filed
a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.10118 of 2005, challenging the order passed
by the first respondent. This Court, vide order dated 12.07.2011, quashed the
auction sale, as it was in violation of mandatory provisions of law and
accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition. Challenging the said order, the
petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.(MD)No.324 of 2013 before the
Division Bench of this Court and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated
12.09.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred S.L.P.(C)No.19659 of
2015 and the same was also dismissed, vide order dated 02.12.2021.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the auction
conducted by the first respondent alone was set aside and this Court did not
take any decision about the possession and right of the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23080 of 2022
Hence, the possession and the right of the first respondent remains the same so
far. Therefore, the first respondent can continue the auction process freshly by
adopting the procedures. Further, the petitioner had developed the land with
huge cost and his possession should not be disturbed in any manner without
suitable orders being passed by the appropriate forum. Since the Patta and
other revenue records in respect of the aforesaid property stands in the name of
the petitioner so far, the first respondent may adopt a method of outright
purchase system and again, sell the property in his favour and the petitioner is
ready to pay the present market value of the property as per the Government
guidelines.
5. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the third
respondent is trying to forcibly dispossess the petitioner's legal possession by
illegal means, which is unwarranted. Hence, the petitioner made a
representation dated 22.06.2022, to the respondents 1 and 2, requesting for
outright purchase of the above said land in his favour. Since the same has not
been considered so far, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of
filing the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that the third respondent filed a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23080 of 2022
Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.10118 of 2005, challenging the order passed by
the first respondent, auctioning the land in question. This Court, vide order
dated 12.07.2011, quashed the auction sale, as it was in violation of mandatory
provisions of law and accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition. Challenging the
said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.(MD)No.324 of 2013
before the Division Bench of this Court and the same was dismissed, vide
judgment dated 12.09.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred S.L.P.
(C)No.19659 of 2015 and the same was also dismissed, vide order dated
02.12.2021 and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that
the third respondent had paid the compensation amount to the workman
concerned and as on date, no due is available.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2; and the
learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and perused the material
available on record.
9. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that already
the auction sale itself has been set aside by this Court, vide order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23080 of 2022
12.07.2011, against which, the petitioner and the first respondent filed writ
appeals before the Division Bench of this Court and the same were dismissed,
vide judgment dated 12.09.2014. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner
preferred S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court and same has also been
dismissed on 02.12.2021. At this stage, now, the petitioner has come forward
with a new plea that the Patta and other revenue records in respect of the said
property stands in his name and therefore, the first respondent may adopt a
method of outright purchase system and again sell the property in his favour,
which cannot be agitated before this Court. Once the auction sale is set aside
and the said sale is not valid in the eye of law, the petitioner cannot squat on
the said property, claiming that he is the owner of the property. The said
attitude of the petitioner is condemnable as he has to hand over the property.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, now, the petitioner is not
in possession of the property. Since the third respondent has also paid the
compensation amount to the workman concerned and the auction sale has
already been set aside and the same has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, the revenue authorities are hereby directed to mutate the said
documents in favour of the third respondent and pass appropriate orders in
respect of refund of the amount paid by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23080 of 2022
10. This Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation and
directions. No costs.
Index : Yes/No 24.11.2022
smn2
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai.
2.The Tahsildar,
Melur Taluk,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23080 of 2022
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
smn2
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.23080 of 2022
24.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
