Madras High Court
A.K.Nasar vs The Secretary on 4 February, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
WP.No.18916 of 2024
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 04.2.2025
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.18916 of 2024 &
WMP.No.20774 of 2024
A.K.Nasar ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Secretary, Government
of Tamil Nadu, Revenue
Department, St. Fort George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Principal Commissioner &
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Commissionerate of Urban Land
Ceiling & Urban Land Tax,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The Assistant Commissioner/
Competent Authority (Urban
Land Tax), Tambaram Range,
Alandur, Chennai.
4.The Chengalpattu District
Collector, Chengalpattu
Collector Office, GST Road,
Chengalpattu-603001.
5.The District Revenue Officer,
Chengalpattu District.
6.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram.
7.The Tahsildar, Tambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
WP.No.18916 of 2024
8.Vivek Vasantharaj ...Respondents
PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the
impugned proceedings dated 14.2.2024 in Na.Ka.No.15876/2023/AA4
on the file of the fifth respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Kather Hussain
For R1 to R7 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, AGP
For R8 : Mr.P.J.Rishikesh
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings
dated 14.2.2024 issued by the fifth respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 7 and
the learned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent.
3. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are stated as
hereunder :
(i) The father of the petitioner was the owner of the property
measuring 78 cents in new S.No.342/4, Keelkattalai Village,
Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District. The title was traceable to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sale deeds, which were executed in the year 1961. The petitioner's
father died in the year 1983. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated
under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the lands were acquired.
Pursuant to that, the lands vested with the Government.
(ii) The petitioner and seven others filed W.P.No.13909 of 2010
before this Court seeking to declare the proceedings initiated by the
third respondent as abated since the physical possession of the subject
property was with the petitioners therein. The said writ petition came
to be allowed on 13.9.2011 on the ground that the acquisition
proceedings have abated in view of Section 4 of the Repeal Act and
that no possession was taken. Aggrieved by the order dated
13.9.2011, W.A.No.1760 of 2013 was filed and it was dismissed by a
Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 19.11.2014.
(iii) Once again, the same persons filed W.P.No.27773 of 2019
seeking mutation of the revenue records in their names and it was
disposed of by order dated 26.11.2019 by issuing directions.
Ultimately, the order of this Court was complied with and the names of
the petitioner and others were entered in the revenue records.
(iv) Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the eighth
respondent made an application dated 31.5.2023 before the sixth
respondent seeking for cancellation of patta on the ground that the
subject property was already sold in favour of him by the father of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner in the year 1975 and that therefore, the patta could not
continue in the names of the petitioner and others. Further, by
proceedings dated 07.7.2023 and 14.7.2023, the sixth respondent
cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner and others.
(v) Aggrieved by that, one Mr.Raji, S/O Prabhakaran filed an
appeal dated 29.7.2023 to the fifth respondent. By the impugned
order, the order passed by the sixth respondent stood confirmed and a
direction was given for removal of the names of the petitioner and
others from the revenue records and to grant patta in favour of the
eighth respondent. The proceedings of the fifth respondent has been
put to challenge in this writ petition.
4. 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 order.
5. In the considered view of this Court, the writ petition is a clear
abuse of process of law. It is brought to the notice of this Court that
the petitioner and others challenged the sale deeds that were executed
in favour of the eighth respondent by the father of the petitioner by
filing civil suits before the competent civil court. The first suit was filed
in O.S.No.64 of 2006 before the Additional Sub-Court, Chengalpet and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
it was dismissed for default on 29.1.2008. The second suit was filed in
O.S.No.77 of 2008 before the Sub-Court, Tambaram challenging the
sale deeds and it was also dismissed for default on 02.7.2009.
6. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner and others were aware of
the fact that the sale deeds were executed by the father of the
petitioner in favour of the eighth respondent. However, there is not
even a whisper about these two suits in the affidavit filed in support of
the writ petition. In any case, once the subject property has been sold
in favour of the eight respondent by the father of the petitioner, the
right and title over the subject property is already vested with the
eighth respondent and the legal heirs of the original vendor can have
no claim over the same. The petitioner and others are now fighting for
a property, which had already been sold in favour of the eighth
respondent by their father.
7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in
the proceedings of the fifth respondent wherein the earlier proceedings
of the sixth respondent were confirmed and the patta issued in favour
of the petitioner and others was directed to be cancelled and a fresh
patta was directed to be issued in favour of the eighth respondent.
Apart from the fact that the above writ petition is an abuse of process
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of law, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected WMP is also dismissed.
04.2.2025
To
1.The Secretary, Government
of Tamil Nadu, Revenue
Department, St. Fort George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Principal Commissioner &
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Commissionerate of Urban Land
Ceiling & Urban Land Tax,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The Assistant Commissioner/
Competent Authority (Urban
Land Tax), Tambaram Range,
Alandur, Chennai.
4.The Chengalpattu District
Collector, Chengalpattu
Collector Office, GST Road,
Chengalpattu-603001.
5.The District Revenue Officer,
Chengalpattu District.
6.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram.
7.The Tahsildar, Tambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
WP.No.18916 of 2024&
04.2.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
