Madras High Court
Dr.S.Baskar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 April, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
2025:MHC:992
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 15.4.2025
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition Nos.11825 & 13083 of 2024
& WMP.Nos.12929 & 14247 of 2024
Dr.S.Baskar ...Petitioner in
both WPs
Vs
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Krishnagiri Revenue Division
Office, Bangalore Road,
Veerappa Nagar, Krishnagiri,
Tamil Nadu-635001.
2.The Tahsildar, Pochampalli
Taluk Office, Pochampalli,
Tamil Nadu-635206.
3.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Pochampalli.
Tamil Nadu-635206. ...R1 to R3 in
WP.No.11825 of
2024
4.The Inspector General of
Registration, No.100, Santhome
High Road, Pattinapakkam,
Chennai-28.
5.The Deputy Inspector General of
Registration, Integrated Building
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
of Registration Department,
Veppamara Street, Velappadi,
Vellore-632001.
6.The District Registrar,
Dharmapuri District,
Gandhi Nagar, Dharmapuri.
Tamil Nadu-636701.
7.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Barur, Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri-635201. ...R1 to R4 in
WP.No.13083 of
2024
8.S.Ranjith Kumar
9.M.Sivakumar
10.M.Mani
11.D.Yuvakarthika ...R4 to R7 in
WP.No.11825 of
2024 & R5 to R8
in WP.No.13083
of 2024
PETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of
(i) a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the order dated 03.1.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent
herein bearing Na.Ka.1371/2023/A2 and the order dated 15.3.2024
passed by the 3rd respondent herein bearing Na.Ka.1371/2023/A2,
quash the same as contrary to Section 10 read with the Proviso to
2/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pasbook Act and the judgment of
Honourable Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Vishwas
Footwear Company Ltd. Vs. the District Collector and Ors. [reported in
2011 (5) CTC 94] and consequently restore single patta Nos.1496,
1128 and 1080 in respect of S.No.5 - Acre 5.94, S.No.6 - Acre 1.44
and S.No.8 - Acre 4.53 at Chellakuttapatti Village, Pochampalli Taluk,
Krishnagiri District to the name of the writ petitioner within a time
stipulated by this Court (WP.No.11825 of 2024); and
(ii) a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent herein to
cancel the registration entry pertaining to the sale deed dated
24.6.2022 bearing Doc.No.1642 of 2022, the sale deed dated
04.1.2023 bearing Doc.No.56 of 2023 and the sale deed dated
04.1.2023 bearing Doc.No. 57 of 2023 in respect of S.No.5 having an
extent of Acre 5.94, S.No.6 having an extent of acre 1.44 and S.No.8
having an extent of Acre 4.53 at Chellakuttapatti Village, Pochampalli
Taluk, Krishnagiri District on the file of his records as illegal, void and
non-est within a time stipulated by this Court (WP.No.13083 of 2024).
For Petitioner in
both the WPs : Mr.A.L.Somayaji, SC for
Mr.J.Ravikumar
For R1 to R3 in
WP.No.11825 of 2024 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, AGP
For R1 to R4 in
WP.No.13083 of 2024 : Mr.U.Bharanidharan, SGP
3/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
For R4 in
WP.No.11825 of 2024 &
For R5 in
WP.No.13083 of 2024 : Tapal returned
For R5 in
WP.No.11825 of 2024 &
For R6 in
WP.No.13083 of 2024 : Ms.S.P.Arthi
For R6 in
WP.No.11825 of 2024 &
For R7 in
WP.No.13083 of 2024 : Mr.B.M.Subash
For R7 in
WP.No.11825 of 2024 &
For R8 in
WP.No.13083 of 2024 : Served & No appearance
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.11825 of 2024 has been filed questioning (i) the order
passed by the Tahsildar, Pochampalli dated 03.1.2024 and (ii) the
order passed by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Pochampalli dated
15.3.2024 and for a consequential direction to restore the patta in the
name of the petitioner in respect of the properties in S.No.5
measuring acres 5.94 cents, S.No.6 measuring acres 1.44 and S.No.8
measuring acres 4.53 cents at Chellakuttapatti Village, Pochampalli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
2. W.P.No.13083 of 2024 has been filed seeking for a direction
to Sub-Registrar, Barur, Krishnagiri District to cancel the entries
pertaining to (i) the sale deed dated 24.6.2022 registered as Doc.No.
1642 of 2022, (ii) the sale deed dated 04.1.2023 registered Doc.No.56
of 2023 and (iii) another sale deed dated 04.1.2023 registered as
Doc.No.57 of 2023 in respect of the subject properties.
3. Heard the respective learned counsel appearing for the both
parties.
4. The facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are as
follows:
(i) The subject properties were originally owned by one Mr.B.V.
Subramaniya Maniyakar from the year 1953. The first wife of the said
Mr.B.V.Subramaniya Maniyakar filed a suit in O.S.No.132 of 1986
before the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri against one Mr.K.S.
Sambasivam seeking to declare the subject properties as belonging to
her and for a permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
possession and enjoyment of the subject properties and it was decreed
on 14.8.1986.
(ii) Later, there was a family dispute, which led to the filing of
O.S.No.75 of 2001 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate
Court, Pochampalli once again by the first wife of the said Mr.B.V.
Subramaniya Maniyakar. During the pendency of the said suit, the said
Mr.B.V.Subramaniya Maniyakar died and his other legal heirs were
brought on record and a settlement was arrived at between the parties
and a compromise decree came to be passed on 29.11.2002. Pursuant
to the said decree dated 29.11.2002, the subject lands were sold by all
the legal heirs of the said Mr.B.V. Subramaniya Maniyakar to one
Mr.P.V.Chandran vide a sale deed dated 17.5.2010 registered as
doc.No.676 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Barur.
(iii) After purchase, the said Mr.P.V.Chandran sold the subject
lands to the petitioner and his wife - one Mrs.Varalakshmi vide two
sale deeds dated 15.7.2013 registered as doc.Nos.863 & 864 of 2013
on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Barur. Later, the petitioner's wife
settled her share in the subject properties in favour of the petitioner
vide settlement deed dated 10.6.2016 registered as doc.No.728 of
2016 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Barur and thereby, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
claims to be the absolute owner of the subject properties.
(iv) During November/December 2022, an attempt was made by
some third parties to deal with the subject properties and hence, the
petitioner applied for an encumbrance certificate, pursuant to which,
he found that a sale deed was executed with respect to the subject
properties in favour of one Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar, who is a party
respondent in the above writ petitions, vide sale deed dated dated
24.6.2022 registered as Doc.No.1642 of 2022 on the file of the Sub-
Registrar, Barur. This sale deed dated 24.6.2022 was purportedly
executed on behalf of the legal heirs of the said Mr.K.S.Sambasivam
pursuant to the ex parte decree dated 28.2.2011 passed in a specific
performance suit in O.S.No.142 of 2010 on the file of the Principal
Sub-Court, Krishnagiri.
(v) Based on the said decree dated 28.2.2011, the pattas were
also issued in the name of the said Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar in patta Nos.
1496 and 1513 without issuing notice to the petitioner. Later, the
petitioner sent a representation dated 19.12.2022 to (i) the District
Registrar (Administration), Registration Department, Krishnagiri
District and (ii) the Sub-Registrar, Barur seeking to cancel the sale
deed dated 24.6.2022 on the ground that it is a fraudulent document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
The said representation dated 19.12.2022 was not entertained by the
District Registrar concerned and ultimately, vide proceedings dated
18.4.2024, the petitioner was directed to approach the competent civil
court seeking appropriate remedy.
(vi) In the meantime, in respect of the subject properties, the
said Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar executed two sale deeds both dated
04.1.2023 registered as doc.Nos.56 and 57 of 2023 on the file of the
Sub-Registrar, Barur in the names of (i) one Mr.M.Sivakumar, (ii)
Mr.M.Mani and (iii) Mrs.D.Yuva Karthika, who are also party
respondents in the above writ petitions. When an attempt was made
to survey the subject properties, it was objected by the petitioner.
Thereafter, the said Mr.M.Sivakumar sent a representation dated
09.2.2023 to the District Registrar, Dharmapuri seeking to declare all
the sale deeds that were executed after 1972 in favour of the
petitioner and his predecessor in title in respect of the subject
properties as fraudulent documents.
(vii) Pursuant to that, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11009 of 2023
before this Court challenging the inquiry initiated by the District
Registrar, Dharmapuri vide proceedings dated 20.3.2023 based on the
said representation dated 09.2.2023 sent by the said Mr.M.Sivakumar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
The said writ petition was entertained and the proceedings in question
was stayed. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.17465 of 2023 challenging
the patta granted in favour of the private respondents and it was
allowed by order dated 22.8.2023 by remitting the matter back to the
Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pochampalli to conduct an inquiry
and pass orders.
(viii) Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Pochampalli, vide proceedings
dated 03.1.2024, cancelled the patta, which stood in the name of the
petitioner and directed the parties to approach the civil court. Further,
by proceedings dated 15.3.2024, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Pochampalli reiterated the said position. Aggrieved by that, W.P.No.
11825 of 2024 has been filed.
(ix) During the pendency of W.P.No.11825 of 2024, W.P.No.
13083 of 2024 has been filed seeking for cancellation of (a) the sale
deed dated 24.6.2022 executed in favour of the said Mr.S.Ranjith
Kumar by the legal heirs of the said Mr.K.S.Sambasivam and (b) the
two sale deeds both dated 04.1.2023 executed in favour of the said
Mr.M.Sivakumar, the said Mr.Mani and the said Mrs.D.Yuva Karthika by
the said Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar.
5. When these writ petitions came up for hearing on 03.4.2025,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
this Court passed the following order :
"Heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in
both the cases.
2. The learned Senior Counsel by relying
upon the documents filed in these writ petitions
explained the flow of title of the writ petitioner with
respect to the subject property. He also brought to
the notice of this Court that the rival claimant,
namely the 4th respondent is relying upon a sale
deed executed in his favour through Court
pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.142 of
2010 dated 18.08.2010 by the Principal Sub Judge,
Krishnagiri. After the sale deed was executed in
favour of the 4th respondent, patta was also
granted in his name in patta No.1496 & 1513. The
learned Senior Counsel submitted that the very
basis of the right and title claimed by the 4 th
respondent hinges upon the decree that was
passed in O.S.No.142 of 2010 by the Principal Sub
Judge, Krishnagiri, dated 18.08.2010. This decree
was put to challenge before this Court in
C.R.P.No.4050 of 2024. This Court by an order
dated 02.12.2024 set aside the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.142 of 2010. In view of
the same, it was contended that the fulcrum of the
claim made by the 4th respondent falls to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
ground and as a consequence, the patta must
stand restored in the name of the writ petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the 4th respondent seeks for some more time in
this case.
4. Post these cases under the caption 'part
heard cases' on 09.04.2025 at 02.15 PM."
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted as follows :
The very basis of the right and title claimed by the said Mr.S.
Ranjith Kumar is dependant upon the ex parte decree dated 28.2.2011
that was passed in O.S.No.142 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub-
Court, Krishnagiri. Similarly, the right and title claimed by other
private respondents is traceable to the title of the said Mr.S.Ranjith
Kumar. As already recorded in the earlier order dated 03.4.2025
passed by this Court, the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2011
passed in O.S.No.142 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court,
Krishnagiri has already been set aside by this Court vide order dated
02.12.2024 in C.R.P.No.4050 of 2024 filed by the petitioner.
7. On the contrary, the respective learned counsel appearing for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
the contesting respondents questioned the decree dated 14.8.1986
passed in O.S.No.132 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Krishnagiri and also the compromise decree dated 29.11.2002 passed
in O.S.No.75 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate Court, Pochampalli. It was contended that both the decrees
dated 14.8.1986 and 29.11.2002 are non est in the eye of law, that
there are interpolations found in the judgments and decrees and that
the judgments and decrees were passed through collusion between the
parties. Consequently, they questioned the sale deed that was
executed in favour of the said Mr.P.V.Chandran on 17.5.2010 and the
subsequent sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner and his wife
by the same Mr.P.V.Chandran on 15.7.2013.
8. In short, the respective learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents wanted this Court to go into the validity of the
judgments and decrees dated 14.8.1986 and 29.11.2002 and set them
at naught and thereafter direct the parties to go before the civil court
and agitate their rights. They supported the orders passed by both
respondents 2 and 3, who had only directed the parties to go before
the civil court and agitate their rights.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on
record and more particularly the impugned orders.
10. In the considered view of this Court, the judgments and
decrees passed by the civil courts cannot be tested by this Court while
exercising its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of The
Constitution of India. This is more so since those judgments were not
even put to challenge by the private respondents.
11. A Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to
deal with this issue in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath
[reported in 2015 (2) CTC 334], the relevant portions of which are
extracted as hereunder :
"4. Thus, the question to be decided is
whether the view taken in Surya Dev Rai that a
writ lies under Article 226 of the Constitution
against the order of the civil court, which has been
doubted in the reference order, is the correct view.
........
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
21. It is true that this Court has laid down
that technicalities associated with the prerogative
writs in England have no role to play under our
constitutional scheme. There is no parallel system
of King’s Court in India and of all other courts
having limited jurisdiction subject to supervision of
King’s Court. Courts are set up under the
Constitution or the laws. All courts in the
jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it
and subject to its control and supervision under
Article 227. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally
conferred on all High Courts. Broad principles of
writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable
to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently
erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of
Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial
courts. There are no precedents in India for High
Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Control
of working of subordinate courts in dealing with
their judicial orders is exercised by way of
appellate or revisional powers or power of
superintendence under Article 227. Orders of civil
court stand on different footing from the orders of
authorities or Tribunals or courts other than
judicial/civil courts. While appellate or revisional
jurisdiction is regulated by statutes, power of
superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional.
The expression “inferior court” is not referable to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
judicial courts, as rightly observed in the referring
order in paras 26 and 27 quoted above.
22. The Bench in Surya Dev Rai also
observed in para 25 of its judgment that distinction
between Articles 226 and 227 stood almost
obliterated. In para 24 of the said judgment
distinction in the two articles has been noted. In
view thereof, observation that scope of Article 226
and 227 was obliterated was not correct as rightly
observed by the referring Bench in Para 32 quoted
above. We make it clear that though despite the
curtailment of revisional jurisdiction under Section
115 CPC by Act 46 of 1999, jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 227 remains unaffected, it has
been wrongly assumed in certain quarters that the
said jurisdiction has been expanded. Scope of
Article 227 has been explained in several decisions
including Waryam Singh and another vs. Amarnath
and another AIR 1954 SC 215 : 1954 SCR 565,
Ouseph Mathai vs. M.Abdul Khadir 2002 (1) SCC
319, Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar
Patil 2011 (1) CTC 854 (SC) : 2010 (8) SCC 329
and Sameer Suresh Gupta vs. Rahul Kumar
Agarwal 2013 (9) SCC 374. In Shalini Shyam
Shetty, this Court observed :
'64. However, this Court unfortunately
discerns that of late there is a growing trend
amongst several High Courts to entertain writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
petition in cases of pure property disputes.
Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating
to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute
between landlord and tenant and also in a case of
money decree and in various other cases where
disputed questions of property are involved, writ
courts are entertaining such disputes. In some
cases the High Courts, in a routine manner,
entertain petitions under Article 227 over such
disputes and such petitions are treated as writ
petitions.
65. We would like to make it clear that in
view of the law referred to above in cases of
property rights and in disputes between private
individuals writ court should not interfere unless
there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown
that a private individual is acting in collusion with a
statutory authority.
66. We may also observe that in some High
Courts there is a tendency of entertaining petitions
under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming
them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified
on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya
Dev and in view of the recent amendment to
Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil
Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is
urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of
Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. In our view,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed
that has not resulted in expanding the High Court’s
power of superintendence. It is too well known to
be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High
Court must follow the regime of law.
67. As a result of frequent interference by
the Hon’ble High Court either under Article 226 or
227 of the Constitution with pending civil and at
times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the
civil and criminal courts gets further impeded and
thus causing serious problems in the
administration of justice. This Court hopes and
trusts that in exercising its power either under
Article 226 or 227, the Hon’ble High Court will
follow the time honoured principles discussed
above. Those principles have been formulated by
this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts
as the highest courts of justice within their
jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly.' (emphasis
added)
23. Thus, we are of the view that judicial
orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of
certiorari under Article 226. We are also in
agreement with the view of the referring Bench
that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a
private person not discharging any public duty.
Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226.
24. We may also deal with the submission
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
made on behalf of the respondent that the view in
Surya Dev Rai stands approved by Larger Benches
in Shail, Mahendra Saree Emporium and Salem
Advocate Bar Assn and on that ground correctness
of the said view cannot be gone into by this Bench.
In Shail, though reference has been made to Surya
Dev Rai, the same is only for the purpose of scope
of power under Article 227 as is clear from para 3
of the said judgment. There is no discussion on the
issue of maintainability of a petition under Article
226. In Mahendra Saree Emporium, reference to
Surya Dev Rai is made in para 9 of the judgment
only for the proposition that no subordinate
legislation can whittle down the jurisdiction
conferred by the Constitution. Similarly, in Salem
Bar Assn. in para 40, reference to Surya Dev Rai is
for the same purpose. We are, thus, unable to
accept the submission of learned counsel for the
respondent."
12. The Three Member Bench of the Hon'b'e Apex Court in the
case of Radhey Shyam has made it clear that judicial orders of civil
courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of The
Constitution of India.
13. In the light of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
Court, this Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
The Constitution of India, cannot go into the validity of the decrees
passed by the civil courts. The very basis, on which, the private
respondents claim right and title over the subject properties, no longer
survives after the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by this Court in
C.R.P.No.4050 of 2024. Hence, the private respondents did not even
have the locus standi to question either the title of the petitioner in the
subject properties or the decrees (i) dated 14.8.1986 passed in
O.S.No.132 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri
and (ii) dated 29.11.2002 passed in O.S.No.75 of 2001 on the file of
the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli.
14. This Court has already made it clear that the private
respondents must agitate their claim only by filing a comprehensive
civil suit and establish their rights, that until the same is done and they
succeed in that, they cannot question the right and title of the
petitioner and that the sale deeds that stand in their favour cannot
independently survive. Consequently, the pattas that were transferred
in the names of the private respondents must also be cancelled and
must be restored in the name of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
15. In the upshot,
(a) the writ petitions are allowed;
(b) the order dated 03.1.2024 passed by
the Tahsildar, Pochampalli and the order dated
15.3.2024 passed by the Zonal Deputy
Tahsildar, Pochampalli are hereby set aside;
(c) There shall be a direction to the
Tahsildar, Pochampalli to mutate the revenue
records by cancelling the pattas standing in the
names of the private respondents and
restoring the pattas in the name of the
petitioner in respect of the subject properties.
This process shall be completed within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order;
(d) The sale deeds (i) dated 24.6.2022
registered as Doc.No. 1642 of 2022, (ii) dated
04.1.2023 registered as Doc.No.56 of 2023
and (iii) dated 04.1.2023 registered as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
Doc.No.57 of 2023 on the file of the Sub-
Registrar, Barur, Krishnagiri District in respect
of S.No.5 having an extent of Acre 5.94,
S.No.6 having an extent of acre 1.44 and
S.No.8 having an extent of Acre 4.53 at
Chellakuttapatti Village, Pochampalli Taluk,
Krishnagiri District are declared to be non-est
in the eye of law since the substratum to those
sale deeds has been knocked off by this Court
while allowing C.R.P.No.4050 of 2024 dated
02.12.2024;
(e) There shall be a direction to the Sub-
Registrar, Barur, Krishnagiri District to make
necessary entries in the encumbrance
certificate by cancelling the said three sale
deeds after taking note of the present order
and such process shall be completed within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order; and
(f) As observed by this Court in the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
dated 02.12.2024 in C.R.P.No.4050 of 2024, if
the private respondents have any right or title
over the subject properties, it is for them to
establish the same before the competent civil
court in accordance with law.
No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed.
15.4.2025
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Krishnagiri Revenue Division
Office, Bangalore Road,
Veerappa Nagar, Krishnagiri,
Tamil Nadu-635001.
2.The Tahsildar, Pochampalli
Taluk Office, Pochampalli,
Tamil Nadu-635206.
3.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Pochampalli.
Tamil Nadu-635206.
4.The Inspector General of
Registration, No.100, Santhome
High Road, Pattinapakkam,
Chennai-28.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
5.The Deputy Inspector General of
Registration, Integrated Building
of Registration Department,
Veppamara Street, Velappadi,
Vellore-632001.
6.The District Registrar,
Dharmapuri District,
Gandhi Nagar, Dharmapuri.
Tamil Nadu-636701.
7.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Barur, Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri-635201.
RS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083
of 2024
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
WP.Nos.11825 & 13083 of 2024&
WMP.Nos.12929 & 14247 of 2024
15.4.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:26 pm )
