Madras High Court
K.Punniyaseelan vs The District Collector on 20 September, 2024
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
WA.No.2588/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
WA.No.2588/2024 & CMP.No.18586/2024
K.Punniyaseelan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector
Perambalur Collectorate
Perambalur.
2.District Revenue Officer
Perambalur District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Perambalur.
4.Mosque Wakf [Jamia Pallivasal] Trust
Arumbavur Post, Reg.No.G.S.No.447
Perambalur District. ... Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2588/2024
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the impugned order passed in WP.No.5206/2018 dated 12.03.2024.
For Appellant : M/s.K.Varsha
For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.G.Krishna Raja, AGP
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
(1)The present writ appeal is directed against the order of learned Single
Judge dated 12.03.2024 dismissing the writ petition in WP.No.5206/2018
filed by the appellant herein, for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing
the 1st respondent herein to dispose of the appellant's representation dated
21.06.2016 and to issue a separate patta to the property measuring an
extent of 13 cents out of total extent of 36 cents comprised in S.No.579/1,
Arumbavur Village, Perambalur Taluk and District.
(2)Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as
follows:-
(3)The appellant claims that he is the absolute owner of the property
admeasuring an extent of 13 cents out of total extent of 36 cents in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No.579/1 Arumbavur Village, Perambalur Taluk and District. It is the
case of the appellant that the said property belongs to one Ram Moopar
who alienated the property in favour of his father Krishnasamy through a
document in the year 1927. It is the further case of the appellant that his
father Krishnasamy allotted the property in his favour through a Partition
Deed vide Doc.No.1516/2000 and he is in possession of that property.
The contention of the appellant is that the property however as per UDR
records, was wrongly included by the Revenue officials with the property
of the 4th respondent Mosque without any notice to the appellant. Though
the 3rd respondent herein earlier included the appellant's name as joint
pattaholder vide proceedings dated 13.07.2007, the appellant admits that
the 4th respondent herein, preferred an appeal against the order of the 3rd
respondent before the 2nd respondent. However, it is seen from the order
of the 2nd respondent dated 30.06.2008 that the order of 3rd respondent
was set aside by the 2nd respondent and the matter was remitted with a
direction to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the 4th respondent filed a
writ petition in WP.No.2647/2008 for issuance of a writ of mandamus,
directing the District Collector to dispose of his representation dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.12.2007. It appears that the writ petition was filed before the order of
the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30.06.2008. Therefore, this Court
disposed of the writ petition filed by the 4th respondent on 19.10.2011
holding that the relief sought by the 4th respondent herein had already
been redressed by the authorities by recording the fact that by then, the
2nd respondent herein has passed the final order on 30.06.2008.
(4)It is seen that after a long gap, the appellant submitted a representation to
the 1st respondent herein for grant of separate patta in his favour. In the
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the appellant has stated facts
with a clear intention to mislead the Court as to the nature of order passed
by the 2nd respondent and the final order passed in WP.No.2647/2008 on
19.10.2011.
(5)Be that as it may, this Court finds that the appellant has not approached
this Court with clean hands. Since the appellant has not filed any
document in support of his claim, this Court directed the learned counsel
for the appellant to file documents which are the basis for the appellant to
claim title or separate patta in respect of the property in dispute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(6)The appellant has now produced before this Court a document of Sale
Deed in Doc.No.1188/1938 dated 11.07.1938 which is not even referred
to in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Though another
document vide Doc.No.1420/1960 dated 10.06.1960 is also filed by the
appellant, the learned counsel is unable to demonstrate how this
document would support the appellant's claim in respect of the property
measuring an extent of 13 cents out of 36 cents in S.No.579/1. The
appellant filed a Partition Deed bearing Doc.No.1516/2000 dated
25.08.2000. The said document shows that the appellant is allotted an
extent of 1855 sqft in S.No.579/1 in Arumbavur Village, Perambalur
Taluk. It is not known, how the appellant could trace his title to a larger
extent in the present proceedings. The document relied upon by the
appellant dated 11.07.1938 do not refer to any survey number or sub
division. No patta or revenue document is produced before this Court in
favour of appellant's predecessors in interest. The appellant has filed a
Patta Passbook which was issued in favour of the 4th respondent showing
that an extent of 9.5 ares in S.No.579/1 has been registered in the holding
of the 4th respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(7)Therefore, this Court finds that WP.No.5206/2018 is filed only to grab
the property and not with good intention. The revenue officials are not
supposed to decide the question of title or to deal with issues involving
complicated questions of facts and law based on documents between rival
claimants. The appellant who is unable to trace his title through
settlement record or by revenue documents, showing appellant's
enjoyment for more than statutory period, this Court cannot recognize the
appellant as a person to get patta. The representation of the appellant to
grant patta for 13 cents as against the document would show the real
intention and purpose behind this litigation. Though the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits, this Court finds it appropriate
to dismiss the writ appeal with cost.
(8)In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-
[Rupees Five Thousand only] payable by the appellant to the District
Legal Services Authority, High Court, Chennai, within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(9)Post on 18.10.2024 for reporting compliance.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
20.09.2024
AP
Internet : Yes
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1.The District Collector
Perambalur Collectorate
Perambalur.
2.District Revenue Officer
Perambalur District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Perambalur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
AP
20.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
