Madras High Court
A.T.P.Senthil Kumaran vs The District Revenue Officer on 3 September, 2024
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T.Asha
W.P.(MD) No.3428 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.3428 of 2016
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.3033 and 3034 2016
A.T.P.Senthil Kumaran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Tahsildhar,
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District.
4.K.L.Venkatachalam Chettiar
5.R.Sankar .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating
to the impugned order in Pa.Mu.Pi/20673/14 dated 13.01.2016 issued by
_________
Page 1 of9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.3428 of 2016
the first respondent in respect of lands in Survey No.109/25, Puthuvayal
Village, Sakkottai Main Road, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar
For R1 to R3 : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
For R5 : Mr.S.Sathishkumar
For R4 : No appearance
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order in
Pa.Mu.Pi/20673/14, dated 13.01.2016 issued by the first respondent in
respect of land in Survey No.109/25, Puthuvayal Village, Sakkottai Main
Road, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
2.The brief facts as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition are follows:
The aforesaid property measuring an extent of 3,117 Sq.ft.,
originally belonged to one Palaniammal, who had executed a registered
sale deed, dated 19.12.1944 in favour of one Kalimuthu, who in turn sold
the same to one Agilandammal under a registered sale deed, dated
_________
Page 2 of9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22.05.1945. The said Agilandammal had executed a registered sale deed,
dated 20.08.1953 in favour of Thangachamy Chettiar, who was in the
absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property.
3.After the demise of the said Thangachamy Chettiar, his legal
heirs viz., one son and three daughters, had entered into a oral partition
and in the said partition, the property was allotted to the share of
Ponnuchamy Chettiar, S/o.Thangacham Chettiar, who is none other than
the father of the petitioner herein. On 20.01.2012, the said Ponnuchamy
Chettiar had executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner and
his brother Sathyanarayanan in respect of the aforesaid property. From
which, the petitioner and his brother have been in possession and
enjoyment of the same.
4.While so, one K.L.Venkatachalam, S/o.Kuzhanthaisamy, Sankar,
S/o.K.L.Rathinam and few others had created a forged power deed in
respect of the aforesaid property and those documents were registered as
Document Nos.1097/97 and 207/97 respectively. While they were
_________
Page 3 of9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
attempting to create the documents in respect of the property in S.No.
109/26, the four boundaries of the land in S.No.109/25 was included. In
the UDR scheme, the name of the respondents 4 and 5 have been
wrongly entered in the revenue records. Therefore, the petitioner had
filed an application before the second respondent to rectify the said
wrong entries. The second respondent by his proceedings dated
08.02.2013 directed the third respondent to transfer the patta in the name
of the petitioner's grandfather viz., Thangachamy Chettiar.
Simultaneously, it appears that the petitioner had also given a complaint
to the District Registrar, Karaikudi in respect of the forged power deed
created by the respondents 4 and 5 and a criminal complaint has also
been lodged before the Sivagangai Town Police Station, on 01.03.2012.
After enquiry, the District Registrar, Karaikudi, issued notice to the
fourth and fifth respondents and after hearing the parties has passed a
detailed order stating that the respondents 4 and 5 and others have
created forged documents and he forwarded the said report to the
Inspector General of Registration for cancelling the same. Though the
Joint Sub-Registrar, has given a complaint to the police officials along
_________
Page 4 of9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with the direction of the District Registrar, no action has been taken.
They have not conducted any enquiry. On repeated requests made by the
petitioner, enquiry was conducted. During the said enquiry, the
respondents 4 and 5 stated that they have filed S.A(MD)No.9 of 2014
before this Court. The respondents 4 and 5, challenging the order passed
by the second respondent dated 08.02.2013, have approached the first
respondent for filing a revision. The first respondent passed the
impugned order dated 13.01.2016 directing the third respondent to
transfer the patta in the name of Kuzhanthaisamy Chettiar, the father of
the fourth respondent, on the basis of the judgment of the second appeal.
Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would place
reliance upon the description of the properties in the schedule to the
decree in O.S.No.21 of 2005 wherein the boundaries have been described
as Thangachamy Chettiar's house and property. The property which is the
subject matter of the suit, situated in S.No.109/26 and therefore, the
description of the property would clearly show that two of the boundaries
_________
Page 5 of9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the property comprised in S.No.109/26 have been described as the
land belonging to Thangachamy Chettiar in S.No.109/25. He would also
submit that this property has been purchased under the sale deed, dated
28.09.1953. However, on perusal of the same, there is no reference either
to S.No.109/25 or to S.No.109/26. The petitioner has also not produced
any earlier revenue records standing in the name of either themselves or
in the name of his predecessor in title. By the impugned order, the first
respondent has pointed out the fact that the petitioner has not filed any
document to prove his title or enjoyment of the land in S.No.109/25 and
has also referred to the pending of the second appeal in S.A(MD).No.9 of
2014 and set aside the order passed by the second respondent.
6.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 would draw the attention of the Court to the patta
granted in the year 1929 wherein the name of Kuzhanthaisamy Chettiar,
the father of the fourth respondent is shown as the person in occupation
of the land in S.No.109/25 and they have produced the documents to
show their continuous use of the said lands. It is seen that the
_________
Page 6 of9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents 4 and 5 did not claim title to S.No.109/25 on the basis of the
sale deed of the year 1929, but, would claim a right only on the basis of
possession which is reflected in 'A' register.
7.Therefore, in the absence of any proof of possession or
ownership by the petitioner, I see no reason to interfere with the order
dated 13.01.2016 passed in Pa.Mu.Pi/20673/14 by the first respondent.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is needless to state that the order
would be subject to the ultimate result of the civil Court proceedings. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.09.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Ns
_________
Page 7 of9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.T.ASHA, J.
Ns
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Tahsildhar,
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District.
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.3033 and 3034 2016
Dated: 03.09.2024
_________
Page 8 of9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
