Madras High Court
C.N.Varadharajan vs The District Collector on 14 September, 2022
WP.No.15794/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
WP.No.15794/2022
C.N.Varadharajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Tiruppur Corporation Division,
Tiruppur.
3.The Tahsildar
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
4.The Commissioner
Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation
Mangalam Road, Tiruppur
Tamil Nadu 641 604. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to
issue No Objection Certificate by considering the representation dated
31.01.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1
WP.No.15794/2022
For Petitioner : Mrs.Vedavalli Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Balathandayutham
Spl.Govt.Pleader
ORDER
(1) The present writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of a writ of
mandamus to direct the 4th respondent to issue No Objection
Certificate by considering the petitioner's representation dated
31.01.2022.
(2) Earlier, when the matter came up for admission on 08.09.2022, this
Court had disposed of the above writ petition by directing the 4th
respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated
31.01.2022 on merits and in accordance with law and to pass orders
within a period of twelve weeks without going into the merits.
(3) However, upon perusal of the judgment in a second appeal which
was also included in the typed set of documents, this Court realised
the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court with a motive
with a new case contrary to what was pleaded before Civil Court.
WP.No.15794/2022
Hence, I directed the Registry to list the above writ petition today
[14.09.2022] under the caption ''For Re-hearing''.
(4) The brief facts that are narrated in the affidavit filed in support of
this writ petition are as follows.
(5) The petitioner states in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit that the writ
petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to issue No Objection Certificate for transfer of patta in
favour of the petitioner for the land comprised in TS.No.75/1A,
Block No.3, Ward No.4 having electricity service connection with
old consumer No.2770 and the new consumer No.64. It is the case
of the petitioner that the land measuring an extent of 738 sq.ft., is in
the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's family for more than
60 years without any let or hindrance. It is the further case of the
petitioner that the property was originally allotted to one
Mr.Arumugam, petitioner's uncle for running a workshop. Stating
that the petitioner's uncle handed over the property to the father of
the petitioner and that the petitioner's father executed a Will in
favour of the petitioner in the year 1999, bequeathing the property,
WP.No.15794/2022
the petitioner claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the
property.
(6) After admitting that Tiruppur Municipality issued an eviction notice,
it is stated that the land in which the petitioner is in possession, is a
gramanatham and therefore, the 2nd respondent/RDO cannot evict
the petitioner by treating him as a trespasser and the right
guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India is infringed. It has been repeatedly stated in the affidavit filed
in support of the writ petition that the 2nd respondent tried to evict
the petitioner without due process of law even though the property is
the property of the petitioner. After suffering an order of eviction by
4th respondent, the petitioner now claims independent right by
alleging that the property is gramanatham.
(7) The petitioner however admits that his father challenged the eviction
proceedings initiated by the 4th respondent in a suit in
OS.No.579/1989 for permanent injunction and the said suit was
dismissed. An appeal in AS.No.40/1995 was also dismissed. The
petitioner admitted that the Tiruppur Municipality [now Tirupur
WP.No.15794/2022
Corporation] / 4th respondent herein issued an eviction notice on
07.04.2000 once again in the name of the petitioner and the
petitioner challenged the said eviction notice by filing another suit in
OS.No.206/2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur.
The petitioner also admits that the said suit was also dismissed on
04.06.2004. The appeal filed by the petitioner in AS.No.41/2004 on
the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppur, was also dismissed on
10.01.2005 and the Second Appeal preferred as against the
concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below in
SA.No.1336/2005 was also dismissed by this Court on 26.03.2019.
However, the petitioner states that the judgment and decree passed
by this Court in SA.No.1336/2005 was on erroneous grounds.
(8) The petitioner further admits that during the pendency of the Second
Appeal, the petitioner had filed WP.No.3517/2015 for issuance of a
writ of mandamus to issue patta to the petitioner with regard to the
property in his enjoyment. The said writ petition was disposed of by
this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider the
petitioner's representation. Pursuant to the direction of this Court,
WP.No.15794/2022
the petitioner's representation was considered and the same was
rejected by the respondents. Challenging the said rejection, the
petitioner filed another writ petition in WP.No.42424/2016. This
writ petition was also dismissed in the year 2016 as admitted by the
petitioner in the affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner has given a
representation to the 1st respondent on 16.09.2019 requesting for
grant of patta in the name of the petitioner. It is really surprising to
note that the petitioner has been continuously making false
representations despite the fact that his earlier representation was
rightly rejected and the writ petition filed against the rejection was
also dismissed.
(9) The petitioner stated that he has also sent a representation to the
Commissioner of Land Reforms on 24.09.2019 for issuance of patta
for the property in his enjoyment. Whenever the petitioner submits a
representation, he relied upon a Resolution dated 31.01.1969 passed
by the Tirupur Municipality [now Tirupur Corporation] in and by
which, the petitioner's uncle Arumugam was directed to pay value of
the land to get a Sale Deed from the 4th respondent. Based on the
WP.No.15794/2022
representation of the petitioner, the Tahsildar, vide order dated
20.12.2019 fixed the land value at Rs.10,94,000/- [Rs.1600/- per
sq.ft] and held that the petitioner will get allotment upon payment of
the value of the property and that the assignment in favour of the
petitioner will be considered subject to the No Objection Certificate
that would be issued by the Commissioner of Tiruppur City
Municipal Corporation. Thereafter, the communication by which the
Tahsildar, Tiruppur, requested the 4th respondent to issue No
Objection Certificate was considered and the Commissioner, Tirupur
City Municipal Corporation issued a Letter in the following lines:-
@kDjhuh; jfg;gdhh; jpU/ejr;rpKj;J vd;gth;
nkw;fhz; epyj;jpid cgnahfpj;J te;jjw;fhd
Mjhu';fs; rkh;gg
; pf;fhjjd; nghpy;. khtl;l
ePjpkd;w';fspy; kDjhuuhy; bjhlug;gl;l tHf;Ffs;
js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;lijna cah; ePjpkd;wKk;
Vw;Wf;bfhz;L nky;KiwaPlL
; tHf;fpy; jPhg
; g
; [
tH';fg;gl;Ls;s epiyapYk;. khefuhl;rpf;Fr;
brhe;jkhd epy';fis tpw;gid bra;a jil
tpjpj;J gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;s murhizapd;
mog;gilapYk;. nkw;fhz; epyk; jw;bghGJ fhypahf
kDjhuhpd; fl;Lg;ghl;oy; ,y;yhj fhuzj;jpdhYk;.
WP.No.15794/2022
Kdjhuhpd; nfhhpf;ifapd; mog;gilapy; nkw;go
epyj;jpid epyf; fpiua mog;gilapy; epy chpik
khw;wk; tH';FtJ Fwpj;J khefuhl;rpapd; K:yk;
Ml;nrgizapd;ikf; fojk; tH';f ,ayhJ vd;w
tpguk; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpd;[email protected]
(10) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 4th
respondent in the following lines:-
@Iah. fle;j 25/06/2020 md;iwa e/f/,1-
1566-2019 d;go jh';fs; jpUg;g{h; bjw;F
jhrpy;jhUf;F vGjpa khefuhl;rpapd;
Ml;nrgidapd;ik jPhk
; hdj;ij
kWghprPyid bra;J nkw;fz;l ,lj;jpy;
v';fs; mDgtk; ekJ efuhl;rp
fpuaj;jpw;F tH';fpajw;fhd jPhk
; hdk;. fpuhk
eph;thf kYtyh; tH';fpa nkw;go epy
chpik mDgy rhd;W Mfpatw;iwa[k;
v';fs; chpikf;fhd FLk;gj;jpy;
tpz;zg;gjuhuhfpa vdf;F fpilf;f ntz;oa
Mjhu';fisa[k; fUj;jpy; bfhz;L
bghUspy;fz;l epyj;ij fpuaj;jpd; ngupy;
vdf;F fpilf;f Vjthf kW
Ml;nrgidapd;ik jPhk
; hdk; xd;iw mDg;gp
itf;FkhW jhH;ika[ld; j';fis ntz;of;
bfhs;fpnwd;/@
(11) From the reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition
WP.No.15794/2022
and the typed set of documents and the nature of the order that is
sought to be obtained from this Court by the petitioner, this Court is
of the view that the petitioner in utter defiance of the order of the
Civil Court has made an attempt to grab the property of the 4th
respondent suppressing material facts and to grab the property by
giving a different colour to his case which is quite contrary to the
case earlier pleaded by the petitioner against 4th respondent in civil
suit.
(12) From the reading of the judgment in SA.No.1336/2005 it appears
that the petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the
Government of Tamil Nadu and Tiruppur Municipality to sell the
property to the plaintiff/petitioner as per the Resolution passed by
the Municipality on 31.01.1969. Again, the relief sought for in the
said suit was also for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit property. Since the petitioner himself
admitted that the property belonged to the Government vested with
the Tirupur Municipality the case of the plaintiff was that the
WP.No.15794/2022
Resolution passed by the Tirupur Municipality in favour of the
petitioner's uncle Arumugam, should be implemented by alienating
the suit property in favour of the petitioner. This Court, after
elaborately considering the entire pleadings and the documents
produced by the petitioner as plaintiff and the defendants, came to
the conclusion that the Municipality cannot be compelled to convey
the suit property in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner
who has not proved that he is in enjoyment of the property, cannot
seek any relief as against the 2nd defendant/Municipality. The
conclusion reached by this Court confirming the decision of the
Courts below would prove that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit
admitting the title of Municipality and the prayer in the suit was to
grant the relief of mandatory injunction directing the Tirupur
Municipality [now Tirupur City Municipal Corporation] to alienate
the property in favour of the petitioner as per the Resolution of the
Municipality in the year 1969. Every issue raised by the
petitioner/plaintiff was found against him and it was held that the
petitioner cannot pursue the plaint when his uncle had not purchased
WP.No.15794/2022
the property from the Municipality at the earliest point of time even
assuming that the case of the petitioner is true.
(13) The Civil Court also held that the plaintiff/petitioner has not proved
that his father was in occupation the suit property under a valid
permission or consent from the Municipality. After holding that the
petitioner has no right in respect of the property, this Court also held
that the Municipality is prohibited from alienating the property
vested with it. From the reading of the judgment of this Court made
in the above Second Appeal, it is seen that the petitioner/plaintiff
was not even in possession of the property in continuation of his
uncle. After failed in the suit in the previous round, the petitioner
has now come forward with a new case and approached the
Revenue Department for assignment and grant of patta under the
pretext that the petitioner is prepared to pay the market value for the
land. The Tahsildar has again passed an order without reading the
legal implication of the judgment of this Court in the Second Appeal.
(14) A thorough scanning of each and every sentence in the affidavit filed
in support of the writ petition and the representations submitted by
WP.No.15794/2022
the petitioner, indicate that the petitioner has tried to mislead the
revenue department as well as the 4th respondent. Ignoring the
pleadings the petitioner had raised before the Civil Court which was
ultimately dismissed by the Courts below and this Court in the
Second Appeal, the petitioner now consciously seeks patta from the
Revenue Department by way of assignment upon collection of value
that was fixed by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar concerned also
appears to have colluded with the petitioner to pass an order in
favour of the petitioner.
(15) From the case projected by the petitioner before the Civil Court and
the case of the petitioner in the recent representations and the
affidavit, after dismissal of Second Appeal, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that the petitioner is in the habit of indulging in
litigations in utter disregard to the finality reached in the previous
suits. More than that the petitioner has approached this Court earlier
during pendency of Second Appeal to lay a foundation to a new case
by filing this writ petitions. After dismissal of those writ petitions,
the petitioner has again come forward with this writ petition for
WP.No.15794/2022
getting No Objection even though, the rejection of his representation
was not challenged. This writ petition is an attempt to pollute the
stream of justice and an abuse of process of law.
(16) The attempt to mislead this Court shows that the conduct of the
petitioner is mischievous. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
DALIP SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P & OTHERS reported in 200
[2] SCC 114 has expressed its concern about the litigants who do
not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and
suppression of facts in the Court proceedings and has observed in
paragraph No.2 as follows:-
''2.In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants
has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do
not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly
resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving
their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by
this new creed of litigants, the Courts have, from time
to time, evolved new rules and it is now well
established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the
stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of
justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief,
interim or final.''
(17) In the light of the facts narrated, this Court is inclined to dismiss the
writ petition with exemplary cost.
(18) Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with cost of
WP.No.15794/2022
Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Only] payable to the
Government High School, Mangalam, Tiruppur District, within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The said school may utilise the above sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
for library and other infrastructural facilities that is required
immediately for the School with the approval of the Chief
Educational Officer, Tirppur District.
(19) Post the matter for reporting compliance after four weeks.
14.09.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Tiruppur Corporation Division,
Tiruppur.
WP.No.15794/2022
3.The Tahsildar
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
4.The Commissioner
Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation
Mangalam Road, Tiruppur
Tamil Nadu 641 604.
COPY TO:
The Headmaster/Headmistress
Government High School, Mangalam, Tiruppur District.
WP.No.15794/2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AP
WP.No.15794/2022
14.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16
