Madras High Court
K.Chinnapandi vs Alagarsamy on 11 April, 2023
W.A(MD)No.1272 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.1272 of 2022
and
CMP(MD)No.9837 of 2022
K.Chinnapandi ... Appellant
vs.
1. Alagarsamy
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Virudhunagar Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
4. P.Gunasekar ... Respondents
PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
against the order dated 03.08.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.12745 of
2022.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for
Mr.M.Jothi Basu
For R1 : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel
For R2 & R3 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.A(MD)No.1272 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The appellant is a busybody who wants to poke his nose
and attempt fish in troubled waters. The land in question was
assigned to one Sanjeevirajan on 04.02.1987 under Standing Order
15(8) of the Revenue Standing Orders. A patta was also issued in
his name. The said Sanjeevirajan sold the property to one Velusamy
on 29.03.2007. Consequent upon the sale, the revenue records
were also mutated in the name of Velusamy. Thereafter, after about
13 years, the said Velusamy sold the property to the 1 st respondent
herein. After the said sale, some of the villagers joined together and
petitioned the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, to assign the
land in favour of the temple. The said request was rejected.
Thereafter, the villagers hatched conspiracy and petitioned the very
same Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of the assignment
on the ground of violation of the conditions. This time, there was a
change in climate and the Revenue Divisional Officer obliged the
villagers by passing a cancellation order on 13.06.2022. This
cancellation order was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition
in W.P(MD)No.12745 of 2022. The writ petition was resisted on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1272 of 2022
ground that the sale has been in violation of the conditions
prescribed. The Writ Court had allowed the writ petition on the
ground that the cancellation was done without notice to the
purchaser of the property and that the alleged violation of condition
will not vitiate the sale, since mutation of revenue records has been
effected. Aggrieved, the 4th respondent in the writ petition is on
appeal.
2. We have heard Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, Mrs.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.P.T.Thiraviam,
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 & 3.
3. Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai would concede that the cancellation
passed without notice to the 1st respondent is not right. He would,
however, take objection to the portion of the order of the Writ Court
where the Writ Court has foreclosed any further enquiry on the
ground that the mutation of revenue records would amount to grant
of permission. According to Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai, this portion of the
order of the learned Single Judge has to be interfered with and if it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1272 of 2022
found that the sale is in violation of the conditions of assignment and
the same is in favour of the person who is not qualified for
assignment, then it will be always open to the Government to cancel
the assignment after notice to the alienee. According to the learned
counsel, the Writ court must have left that question open and given
an opportunity to the Government to re-examine the position.
4. Contending contra, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that in view
of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in T.Tirumalai
Gounder and another vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in
2010-5-L.W. 289, relied upon by the Writ Court, the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant that the Writ Court erred in
foreclosing any enquiry on the status of the alienee, cannot be
accepted. According to Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, once the authorities have
accepted the alienations and effected mutations in the revenue
records, the appellant cannot challenge the alienations.
5. In the case on hand, the assignee had sold the property
to Velusamy and the said Velusamy had sold the property to the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1272 of 2022
respondent. Therefore, the property has already crossed one hand
when it was purchased by the 1st respondent. If we are to permit a
probe into the alienation, the same must be of the alienation that
took place in the year 2007 in favour of Velusamy. We do not think
we could allow such a probe that too after the authorities had acted
upon the alienation and had effected mutation of the revenue
records. A Division Bench of this Court in T.Tirumalai Gounder
and another vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2010-5-
L.W. 289, referred to supra, has only said that once mutation of
revenue records has been made, absence of permission will not
vitiate the sale. In the case on hand, as we could seen from the
order, mutation of revenue records was effected after every sale.
Therefore, we do not see any reason to fault the Writ Court for
having allowed the writ petition in toto. The Writ Appeal fails and it
is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) & (L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.)
11.04.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1272 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
bala
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District.
2. The Tahsildar,
Virudhunagar Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.1272 of 2022
DATED : 11.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
