Madras High Court
A.Usha vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 10 April, 2023
WA No.829 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.04.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
WA No.829 of 2023
A.Usha ... Appellant
versus
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram, Chennai.
2.G.Thambiraj
3.T.Jaya ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the
order dated 27.02.2023 in WP No.20671 of 2018.
For the Appellant :: Mr.P.Vijendran
For the Respondents :: Mr.P.Muthukumar,
State Government Pleader,
for the first respondent
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.829 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
This writ appeal has been filed questioning the correctness of the order
passed by learned Single Judge in WP No.20671 of 2018, dated 27.02.2023.
2. The writ petition had been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, to take steps to retrieve the land in
S.No.510/6 (Old S.No.179/Pa) from respondents 2 and 3 and hand over the
same to the appellant herein. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition
on the ground that the first respondent has been wrongly impleaded in the writ
petition as he is not the jurisdictional officer for the said land. Learned Single
Judge also further stated that the correct jurisdictional officer is the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Sriperumbathur. The appellant was given liberty to make a
fresh representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sriperumbathur, and
dismissed the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant’s husband
was working as a Head Constable with the police Department and he expired in
the year 2008, leaving behind him the appellant and a son and a daughter. At
that time, the children were studying in school. The Government had issued a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.829 of 2023
plot through the revenue department to the appellant’s late father
Thiru.Kathirvelu on 30.06.1994 under the ‘Natham land taxation scheme’ in New
S.No.510/6 (Old S.No.179/Pa), to an extent of 0070 sq.mt vide patta no.527 in
Village No.50, Kovur village, Sriperumpathur Taluk, classified as ‘Chery natham’.
It is further stated that the appellant’s father had also settled the said vacant land
to the appellant through a settlement deed dated 20.05.2003. The appellant has
constructed a house there on, by spending her husband’s money and she was
living there with her family members. After her husband’s demise, the appellant
and her children were suffering financially. The appellant was unable to meet the
educational expenses of her children. At that time, respondents 2 and 3 were
introduced to the appellant by her brother-in-law. Respondents 2 and 3
undertook to arrange educational loan to the children and requested the
appellant for house documents. Respondents 2 and 3 advised the appellant to
open a joint bank account to avail educational loan. Accordingly, a joint bank
account was opened in the name of the appellant and the second respondent, in
the Indian Bank, Ayanavaram Branch. Thereafter, respondents 2 and 3 took the
appellant to a shop near the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Kundrathur, and obtained
her signature in some blank stamp papers on the premise that the same is
required for mortgaging the property for availing educational loan. After a month,
a sum of Rs.2.25 lakh was paid to the appellant and she was assured that the
rest would be paid in due course. However, no amount was paid. One fine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.829 of 2023
morning, respondents 2 and 3 came to the house of the appellant and informed
her and her tenants that the property stood transferred in their name and
directed the appellant and others to vacate the premises immediately. On
verification with the office of the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Kundathur, the appellant
came to know that she has been cheated by respondents 2 and 3.
4. Immediately thereafter, the appellant lodged a complaint before the
Mangadu Police Station, on 19.07.2009. However, no action was taken thereon.
Therefore, the appellant lodged a complaint before the Commissionerate of Sub
Urban, Chennai. During the pendency of the complaint, the first respondent
trespassed into her house on 04.08.2010, along with rowdy elements and
damaged the house and household properties. A complaint was lodged before
the Assistant Commissioner of Police, St.Thomas Mount, on 09.08.2010.
However, no action was taken. On the contrary, a case was registered against
the appellant in Cr.No.378/2010 under Section 448, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and she
was sent to judicial custody. However, learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sriperampathur, acquitted the appellant.
5. Again, the appellant lodged a complaint against respondents 2 and 3
before the Mangadu Police Station. However, there was no response. Hence,
the appellant filed Crl.O.P.No.18192/2014 before this Court, for registration of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.829 of 2023
complaint. This Court allowed the original petition vide order dated 22.07.2014.
Since respondents 2 and 3 cheated the appellant by creating forged sale deeds,
the appellant made a representation to the first respondent on 13.04.2018 with a
request to retrieve the property from respondents 2 and 3 and handover the
same to the appellant. Since there was no action taken thereon, the appellant
has filed the above writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge.
As against the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.
6. For the following reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ
appeal:
(i) The appellant has made a false statement before this
Court. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been
clearly mentioned that respondents 2 and 3 undertook to arrange
educational loan for the children of the appellant, and requested
the appellant to part with house documents, for giving them as
security for arranging loan. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the
appellant has stated that she agreed for opening a joint account in
the Indian Bank, Ayanavaram Branch, with the second respondent.
This only implies that the appellant has willingly parted with her
house documents;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.829 of 2023
(ii) In paragraph 6 of the affidavit, the appellant has further
stated that respondents 2 and 3 had taken the appellant to a shop
near the Sub Registrar’s Office, Kundrathur, wherein appellant’s
signature was obtained in some blank stamp papers by
respondents 2 and 3, under the guise of mortgaging the property
for availing educational loan. Admittedly, the appellant has also
affixed her signature in the stamp papers and the sale deed is duly
registered. Here again, the appellant has willingly taken part in the
transaction;
(iii) After one month from the date of registration,
respondents 2 and 3 paid a sum of Rs.2.25 Lakh to the appellant
with a promise to pay the balance amount. One fine morning,
respondents 2 and 3 informed the appellant and other tenants that
the property has been transferred in their name and asked them to
vacate the property. Since the appellant has executed a sale deed
in favour of respondents 2 and 3, it is not known how the appellant
could knock the doors of this Court with the relief as sought for. The
appellant has already filed a police complaint against respondents
2 and 3. The appellant herself has suffered a criminal case though
she was acquitted later.
(iv) While for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.829 of 2023
revenue authorities, the appellant in her representation dated
13.04.2018 states that the plot was assigned to her father by the
Special Tahsildar, Sriperumbutur. But in the settlement deed dated
22.05.2003, it is clearly mentioned that the plot was the ancestral
property of the appellant’s grandfather Mr.Appu, and it was
inherited by her father.
7. The appellant has no justification to come to this Court having executed
a sale deed. The proper remedy for the appellant lies before the civil court.
Instead of approaching the civil Court, the appellant has wrongly come to this
Court. While dismissing the appeal, for wasting the Court’s time, we impose a
cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), to be paid by the appellant or by
her Advocate, to the Madras High Court Advocate Clerks' Association, Chennai,
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
10.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tar
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.829 of 2023
T.RAJA, ACJ,
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(tar)
WA No.829 of 2023
10.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
