Madras High Court
Nithiyadevi vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2023
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.12168 of 2014 and
M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2014
Nithiyadevi .. Petitioner
vs
1. Union of India
U.T of Puducherry
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
2. The District Collector
Saram, Puducherry.
3. The Tahsildar
Taluk Office, Puducherry.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police (L&O)
Puducherry.
5. The Station House Officer
Odiansalai Police Station
Puducherry.
6. Antoniette Yvonne Victoria Dambrun
7. Marie Eugenie Vanarodja Dambrun
8. Marie Joseph Adrien Dambrun
9. Marie Antoinette Leduine Burgues
10. Marie Philomene Julienne Tschanturia
11. Marie Franscique Xavier Dambrun .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 13
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the order bearing No.22/TOP/TAH/LAND GRAB/PF/2014,
dated 11.02.2014 on the file of the third respondent and to quash the same
and consequently, forbear the respondents from interfering with her
peaceful possession and enjoyment of her western portion of the property
bearing T.S.No.244 & 245 & R.S.No.239 pt. And Door No.18, Kandappa
Mudali Street (& Madha Koil Street), Puducherry – 605 001, measuring
925 Sq.ft and the three storeyed building constructed by her thereon, in
any manner.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Manoharan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.T.M.Naveen
For Respondents : Mrs.G.D.Jearamy
Govt. Advocate (Puducherry)
for R1 to R5
Mrs.P.Veena Suresh
for R6 to R11
ORDER
The writ petition has been instituted challenging the order dated
11.02.2014 passed by the Tahsildar under the Land Grabbing petition filed
by Thiru.Marie Joseph Adrien Dambrun @ Tambrun in respect of the
property situated in T.S.No.244 & 245 of Ward-D, Block No.16,
Puducherry Revenue Village.
2. The right of title / ownership in respect of the property has
already been crystalized in view of the fact that the matter went up to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
confirmed the ownership by stating that Thiru.Dambrun Paulin is the title
holder and Thiru.Rollando Joseph is only a tenant. The tenant
Thiru.Rollando Joseph settled the property belonging to Thiru.Dambrun
Paulin in favour of his son and the son of the said Rollando Joseph / tenant
sold the property in favour of the petitioner. The civil right in respect of the
property has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in favour
of the said Thiru.Dambrun Paulin and thus, he became the absolute owner
of the property as of now.
3. There was a prolonged dispute between the petitioner's
vendor's father and his landlord. The petitioner's vendor's father, who is
only a tenant, did not have the title. One Smt.S.Santhi, who was also a
purchaser of a portion of the property filed W.P.No.5723 of 2014
challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar in proceedings dated
11.02.2014 and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on
05.01.2016. Even in the said order, this Court made a finding that
Thiru.Dambrun Paulin is the title holder as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India. Thus, the issues regarding the title between the
parties are no more res integra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4. The petitioner derived the title only through the tenant and
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
therefore, the petitioner has no right over the property as against the owner,
who established his right up to the Apex Court of India. Pertinently, a suit
was instituted by the original owner Thiru.Dambrun Paulin in O.S.No.945
of 1982, seeking eviction of the tenant Thiru.Rollando Joseph. The suit was
decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the eviction was ordered by the
Additional District Munsif Court at Puducherry. The tenant filed an appeal
suit in A.S.No.25 of 1984 before the Additional District Court at
Puducherry and the said appeal suit was allowed in favour of the tenant,
setting aside the judgment and decree passed in the suit. The owner of the
property, Thiru.Dambrun Paulin filed a second appeal in S.A.No.144 of
1998 before the High Court of Madras and vide judgment and decree dated
18.08.2000, the judgment and decree passed in the original suit was
restored by the High Court in the second appeal.
5. The tenant Thiru.Rollando Joseph filed a Special Leave
Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
C.A.No.5384 of 2017 and the Apex Court, vide order dated 23.11.2005,
dismissed the said civil appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated
11.11.1983, passed by the Trial Court. Thus, the title regarding the
property stays confirmed in the name of Thiru.Dambrun Paulin and the
portion of the property sold in favour of the father of the petitioner was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
found to be illegal.
6. The original owner instituted action for land grabbing, since
the original owner raised a ground that the sale was concluded with the
collusion of the petitioner and they have also committed offence of land
grabbing. A petition was filed before the competent authority and the
Tahsildar adjudicated the issues elaborately by affording opportunity to all
the parties. The extract of the settlement register was considered by the
Tahsildar and field inspection was conducted by the authorities to ascertain
the topography of the property. An enquiry was conducted by affording
opportunity to the parties and the findings made by the Tahsildar is based
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the said
Thiru.Dambrun Paulin is the title holder and Thiru.Rollando Joseph is only
a tenant. The findings are extracted hereunder:
“8.4. Thus, in finality it is concluded that it
is a fit case of land grabbing by Thiru.Rolland
Kichore Aliberty Ashokan S/o Rollando Joseph, both
the counter petitioners and any other related persons.
Hence, it is reported that the District Authority may
initiate action to direct the Police Department to
initiate action under Section 415-Cheating; Section
420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
property; Section 468- Forgery for purpose of
cheating; Section 471- Using as genuine a forged
document and any other Section under the Chapter
XVII of Offences Relating to Documents and to
Property Marks after conduct of discreet enquiry by
the Police Department. Furthermore, it is reported
that based on the judgment and decree of the Supreme
Court of India in C.A.No.5384 of 2001 dated
23.11.2005 which clears that Thiru.Dambrun Paulin
as the title holder and Thiru.Rollando Joseph as only
a tenant, the petitioner and five others are in the eye
of law at liberty to take possession of their property.”
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ
petitioner mainly contended that the Tahsildar is incompetent to decide the
title of the immovable property. It is contended that the petitioner is the
purchaser and therefore, the petitioner has not committed any illegality.
The petitioner was not aware of these factors and thus, the writ petition is
to be allowed. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
petitioner, who purchased the property obtained building plan permission
from the legal authorities and constructed the building. Therefore, in the
event of not considering the writ petition, great prejudice would be caused
to the writ petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private
respondents opposed the said contention by stating that the writ
petitioner's father purchased the property during the pendency of the
litigation and therefore, he has no right to claim possession or otherwise.
She would further submit that the petitioner's vendor's father was a tenant
and the petitioner purchased from the person who has no valid title over
the property. Thus, the respondents instituted proceedings for land
grabbing and more so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed an order
stating that the tenant Thiru.Rollando Joseph has to vacate the premises on
or before 31.08.2006. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an
order directing the tenant to vacate the premises before 31.08.2006, the
subsequent purchaser has no right over the property and is in illegal
occupation and thus, they have indulged in land grabbing and the
consequential order passed by the Tahsildar is in light of the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and therefore, the writ
petition is to be rejected.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, the revenue authorities are incompetent to determine the title or
ownership in respect of the property. However, if the documents prima
facie establishes the title or the Court orders obtained in this regard, then,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
the revenue authorities are empowered to deal with the petitions filed for
land grabbing or for issuance of patta or revenue records or otherwise.
While considering these arguments, the authorities are competent to
consider the nature of the documents and orders passed by the Courts and
take a decision on merits and in accordance with law.
10. In the present case, the land grabbing petition was filed by
the private respondents and the Tahsildar adjudicated the issues
elaborately by affording opportunity to all the parties and documents were
considered. Finally, the Tahsildar found that the petitioner is an
unauthorized occupant and has no title over the property. But, the
Tahsildar found that the private respondents are entitled to the property,
since the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that Thiru.Dambrun Paulin
is the title holder of the subject property and Thiru.Rollando Joseph is only
a tenant. Thus, the adjudication cannot be found fault with since the
Tahsildar has not declared title, but he has ascertained the title based on
the orders passed by the Apex Court of India.
11. More so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed
the tenant to evict the premises on or before 31.08.2006. Almost 16 years
lapsed. Till today, the owner of the property is unable to take possession of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
the same despite the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this
regard, the learned counsel for the private respondents drew the attention
of this Court with reference to Order XXI Rule 102, which is extracted
herein under:
“102.Rules not applicable to transferee
pendente lite.- Nothing in rules 98 and 100 shall
apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a
decree for the possession of immovable property by a
person to whom the judgment debtor has transferred
the property after the institution of the suit in which
the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any
such person.”
12. In view of the fact that the petitioner has no title over the
property nor is the original owner, he is liable to be evicted immediately.
No doubt, the original owner fought for long years to establish his title. A
suit instituted in the year 1982 came to an end in the year 2005 after a
lapse of 23 years. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Apex Court
directed the tenants to vacate the subject property on or before 31.08.2006.
Even thereafter, petitioners were successful in occupation in the premises
illegally under litigious continuance.
13. If at all the petitioner had been cheated by his vendor, then
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
the petitioner has to initiate all appropriate actions against his own vendor
and such action would not affect the right of the original owner, who had
already established his right before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The right to claim possession, which was their relief claimed against the
father of the petitioner, is unconnected with the eviction to be made against
the illegal occupants / petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any
relief from the hands of this Court.
14. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in continuous
possession despite the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this
Court is not inclined to grant any further leniency in evicting the petitioner,
since the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed an order directing the
tenant to vacate the premises on or before 31.08.2006. Accordingly, the
petitioner is directed to vacate the premises and handover the vacant
possession to the respondents 6 to 11 within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. In the event of not vacating the premises within a period of
one month, then, the respondents 1 to 5 are directed to evict the petitioner
with the assistance of the Police and handover the vacant possession to the
respondents 6 to 11 within a period of four weeks thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with the
liberty to the petitioner to sue his vendor for redressal of his grievances in
the manner known to law. There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Index : Yes/No 21.04.2023
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
To:
1. The Secretary to Government
Union of India, U.T of Puducherry
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
2. The District Collector
Saram, Puducherry.
3. The Tahsildar
Taluk Office, Puducherry.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police (L&O)
Puducherry.
5. The Station House Officer
Odiansalai Police Station
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
drm
W.P.No.12168 of 2014
21.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
