Madras High Court
Ki.Ar.Al.Alagappan Ambalam vs S.Karpaga Vinayagar Firm on 9 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 926
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007 & 1 of 2009
and
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1259 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.2 & 3 of 2009 & 1 of 2011
and
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.7 of 2006
in
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1230 of 2002
and
Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.39 & 40 of 2007
in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006
and
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.48 of 2007
in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.740 of 2006
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007
and
W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2013, 1 & 2 of 2014
and
Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
in
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1259 of 2009
1/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006:
1.Ki.AR.AL.Alagappan Ambalam
2.A.Somasundaram @ Krishnappan ... Petitioners
vs.
1.S.Karpaga Vinayagar Firm
Rep.by its Parter M.Krishnan Servai
Karaikudi
2.S.Chelladurai
Advocate
Receiver – Kattayur Nattar Common Estate
In OS No.72/1933 Sub Court, Devakottai
3.C.T.Ramasamy
4.Radhakrishnan
5.Solai
6.Manikandan
7.Balasubramanian ... Respondents
[on condition R3 to R6 are impleaded
as per order of Court dated
10.10.2007 made in M.P.(MD) No.2 of
2007]
2/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
PRAYER: Civil revision petition is filed, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the order dated 02.03.2006 and made in I.A.No.448 of
2005 in I.A.No.62 of 1986 in O.S.No.72 of 1933, on the file of the Sub Court,
Devakottai.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Anandakumar
For Respondents : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R1
Mr.R.Vijayakumar for R2
Mrs.Nalini Chaidambaram, Senior Counsel
for Mr.T.V.Sivakumar for R3 to R7
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1259 of 2009:
M/s.Karpaga Vinayagar Firm
by its Partner V.Lakshmanan
D.No.37, Church 3rd Street
Karaikudi Nagar
Sivagangai District ... Petitioners
vs.
1.S.Selladurai
Advocate Cum Receiver of
Common Estate of the Ettukarai
Valambars of Kottaiyur
in O.S No.72 of 1933, Sub Court, Devakottai
2.K.R.Ramachandran
3/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
3.Solaimalai
4.S.Subbraman
5.SP.Natesan
6.S.Periakaruppan
7.SP.Subbiah
8.AR.Arunachalam
9.C.Kumar
10.RM.Shanmugam
11.RM.R.Ganesan
12.S.Arunachalam
13.A.Palaniyappan
14.SP.Subburaman
15.RM.Subburaman
16.K.Palaniyappan
17.D.Mallika ... Respondents
[Cause Title accepted vide order dated
07.09.2009 and made in M.P.(MD) No.
1 of 2009 in C.R.P.(MD) No.SR34812
of 2009 and R2 to R17 are impleaded
vide order dated 22.11.2010 made in
M.P.(MD) Nos.4 & 5 of 2009]
4/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
PRAYER: Civil revision petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the petition
and orders in I.A.No.295 of 2005 in I.A.No.448 of 2005 in I.A.No.62 of 1986 in
O.S.No.72 of 1933, dated 15.09.2006, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's
Court at Devakottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar for R1
Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar for R2 to R15
Mr.M.Vallinayagam, Senior Counsel
for Mr.D.Nallathambi for R16 & R17
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.7 of 2006 in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1230 of 2002:
1.K.R.Ramachandran
2.Solaimalai
3.S.Subbraman
4.SP.Natesan
5.S.Periakaruppan
6.S.Chinnachami
7.SP.Subbiah
5/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
8.AR.Arunachalam
9.C.Kumar
10.RM.Shanmugam
11.RM.R.Ganesan
12.S.Arunachalam
13.A.Palaniyappan
14.SP.Subburaman
15.RM.Subburaman ... Petitioners
vs.
1.S.Karpaga Vinayagar Firm
Rep.by its Partner M.Krishnan Servai
Door No.37, Church, 3rd Street
Karaikudi, Sivagangai District
2.S.Chelladurai
Advocate
Present Receiver
Vallalar Street, Devakottai
Sivagangai District
3.K.Palaniappan
4.NK.M.SP.Valliappa Chettiar
5.SP.V.Subbiah
6/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
6.V.Venkatachalam
7.M.Balasaraswathi
8.R.Kalaiselvi
9.D.Mallika
10.M.Kantha Mehta
11.R.Shoba Mehta
12.R.Lalitha Mehta
13.M.Santhammai
14.V.Shanthi
15.T.Sundaravalli
16.C.T.Deivanai
17.R.M.Thamilarasi
18.VR.Periammal
19.S.Philomeenal
20.L.Gowri
21.S.Arokiasamy ... Respondents
[R3 to R21 are impleaded vide order
dated 22.11.2010 made in M.P.(MD)
No.1 of 2009 in Rev.Aplc.No.7 of 2006
and 1, 1 and 1 of 2009 in
Rev.Aplc.Nos.39, 40 and 48 of 2007]
7/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
PRAYER: Review application is filed, under Section 114 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the order dated 08.07.2005 passed in C.R.P.(PD) (MD)
No.1230 of 2002 and C.M.P.No.10437 of 2002.
For Petitioners : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan for R1
Mr.Anand Chandrasekar
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
for R7, R8, R11 to R16, R19 to R21
No appearance for R2 to R6, R9, R10, R17 & 18
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.39 of 2007 in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006:
1.K.AR.AL.Alagappan Ambalam
2.A.Somasundaram @ Krishnappan ... Petitioners
vs.
1.S.Karpaga Vinayagar Firm
Rep.by its Partner M.Krishnan Servai
Door No.37, Church, 3rd Street
Karaikudi
2.S.Chelladurai
Advocate
Receiver – Kottaiyur Nattar Common
Estate in O.S.No.72/1933
Sub Court, Devakottai
8/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
3.K.Palaniappan
4.NK.M.SP.Valliappa Chettiar
5.SP.V.Subbiah
6.V.Venkatachalam
7.M.Balasaraswathi
8.R.Kalaiselvi
9.D.Mallika
10.M.Kantha Mehta
11.R.Shoba Mehta
12.R.Lalitha Mehta
13.M.Santhammai
14.V.Shanthi
15.T.Sundaravalli
16.C.T.Deivanai
17.R.M.Thamilarasi
18.VR.Periammal
19.S.Philomeenal
20.L.Gowri
9/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
21.S.Arokiasamy ... Respondents
[R3 to R21 are impleaded vide order
dated 22.11.2010 made in M.P.(MD)
No.1 of 2009 in Rev.Aplc.No.7 of 2006
and 1, 1 and 1 of 2009 in
Rev.Aplc.Nos.39, 40 and 48 of 2007]
PRAYER: Review application is filed, under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 21.09.2007 passed in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006, on the file of this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan for R1
Mr.Anand Chandrasekar
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
for R7, R8, R11 to R16, R19 to R21
No appearance for R2 to R6, R9, R10, R17 & 18
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.40 of 2007 in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006:
1.K.AR.AL.Alagappan Ambalam
2.A.Somasundaram @ Krishnappan ... Petitioners
vs.
10/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
1.S.Karpaga Vinayagar Firm
Rep.by its Partner M.Krishnan Servai
Door No.37, Church, 3rd Street
Karaikudi
2.S.Chelladurai
Advocate
Receiver – Kottaiyur Nattar Common
Estate in O.S.No.72/1933
Sub Court, Devakottai
3.K.Palaniappan
4.NK.M.SP.Valliappa Chettiar
5.SP.V.Subbiah
6.V.Venkatachalam
7.M.Balasaraswathi
8.R.Kalaiselvi
9.D.Mallika
10.M.Kantha Mehta
11.R.Shoba Mehta
12.R.Lalitha Mehta
13.M.Santhammai
14.V.Shanthi
15.T.Sundaravalli
11/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
16.C.T.Deivanai
17.R.M.Thamilarasi
18.VR.Periammal
19.S.Philomeenal
20.L.Gowri
21.S.Arokiasamy ... Respondents
[R3 to R21 are impleaded vide order
dated 22.11.2010 made in M.P.(MD)
No.1 of 2009 in Rev.Aplc.No.7 of 2006
and 1, 1 and 1 of 2009 in
Rev.Aplc.Nos.39, 40 and 48 of 2007]
PRAYER: Review application is filed, under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 13.09.2007 passed in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006, on the file of this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan for R1
No appearance for R2 to R21
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.48 of 2007 in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.740 of 2006:
1.K.R.Ramachandran
2.Solaimalai
12/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
3.S.Subbraman
4.SP.Natesan
5.S.Periakaruppan
6.S.Chinnasamy
7.SP.Subbiah
8.AR.Arunachalam
9.C.Kumar
10.RM.Shanmugam
11.RM.R.Ganesan
12.S.Arunachalam
13.A.Palaniyappan
14.SP.Subburaman
15.RM.Subburaman ... Petitioners
vs.
1.S.Karpagavinayagar Firm
Rep.by its Partner M.Krishnan Servai
Karaikudi
2.S.Chellathurai
Advocate Receiver
Kottaiyur Nattar Common Estate
(Appointed in O.S.No.72/1933
Sub-Court, Devakottai)
13/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
3.K.Palaniappan
4.NK.M.SP.Valliappa Chettiar
5.SP.V.Subbiah
6.V.Venkatachalam
7.M.Balasaraswathi
8.R.Kalaiselvi
9.D.Mallika
10.M.Kantha Mehta
11.R.Shoba Mehta
12.R.Lalitha Mehta
13.M.Santhammai
14.V.Shanthi
15.T.Sundaravalli
16.C.T.Deivanai
17.R.M.Thamilarasi
18.VR.Periammal
19.S.Philomeenal
20.L.Gowri
14/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
21.S.Arokiasamy ... Respondents
[R3 to R21 are impleaded vide order
dated 22.11.2010 made in M.P.(MD)
No.1 of 2009 in Rev.Aplc.No.7 of 2006
and 1, 1 and 1 of 2009 in
Rev.Aplc.Nos.39, 40 and 48 of 2007]
PRAYER: Review application is filed, under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 13.09.2007 passed in C.R.P.(NPD)
(MD) No.740 of 2006, on the file of this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan for R1
Mr.Anand Chandrasekar
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
for R7, R8, R11 to R16, 19 to R21
No appearance R2 to R6, R9, R10, R17, R18
W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013:
M/s.Karpaga Vinayagar Firm
by its Partner V.Lakshumanan
No.14, Subramaniapuram 1st Street
Karaikudi
Sivagangai District ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Sub Registrar Joint II
Karaikudi, Sivagangai District
15/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
2.S.Selladurai
Advocate Cum Receiver of
Common Estate of the Ettukarai
Valambars of Kottaiyur
in O.S No.72 of 1933, Sub Court, Devakottai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent from registering
any document presented by anybody other than the second respondent in
respect of 3.27 Acres, in old Survey No.9/6A2A1A, new Survey No.191/2A1 of
Sekkalakottai Village, Sankarapuram Panchayat, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai
District.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj
For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganandham
Additional Government Pleader for R1
Mr.R.Vijayakumar for R2
Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1259 of 2009:
M/s.Karpaga Vinayagar Firm
by its Partner V.Lakshumanan
No.14, Subramaniapuram 1st Street
Karaikudi
Sivagangai District ... Petitioner
vs.
16/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
1.Athmanathan
Inspector of Police
North Police Station
Karaikudi
Sivagangai District
2.Tamilarasi
Sub Registrar Joint II
Senjai, Karaikudi
Sivagangai District
3.Mangudi
S/o.Sathaiah
President
Sankarapuram Panchayat
Sekkalakottai
Karaikudi, Sivagangai District
4.MR.Subramanian
Assistant Engineer (Rural)
TANGEDCO, Karaikudi
Sivagangai District
5.M.Ananthayee
Additional Division Engineer
TANGEDCO, Karaikudi
Sivagangai District
6.V.Jeyalalitha
7.R.Priyadharshini
8.K.Seenivasan
9.K.Manivannan
17/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
10.Sundaraalagu
11.S.Anandhanayagi
12.P.Sivagami
13.A.Karmegam
14.P.Thenmozhi
15.K.Vairamuthu
16.Ganesh Kumar
17.Pandiyaraju
18.Rukmani
19.K.Meenakshisundaram ... Respondents
PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act,
to summon the respondents and deal with them as per law for having willfully
disobeyed the direction of this Court made in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1259 of
2009, dated 22.06.2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan
For Respondents : Mr.H.Lakshmishankar for R3
Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha for R4 & R5
Mr.S.Srinivasaraghavan
for R6 to R8, R10 to R16, R18 & R19
No appearance for R1, R2, R9 & R17
18/72
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259
of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006,
39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716
of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
COMMON ORDER
The common facts leading to filing of these batch of cases are enumerated for considering the issues raised in all the cases.
2. The properties, which are the subject matter in these cases, belonged to the common estate of Kottaiyur Nattars. On account of the internal disputes with regard to the possession and enjoyment of the properties commonly, a civil suit came to be instituted on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai in O.S.No.72 of 1933, which was subsequently, adjudicated by the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram and a decree of partition was issued in O.S.No.21 of 1936. There were two plaintiffs and 98 defendants in the said suit. A Commissioner was appointed to divide the properties by metes and bounds among the persons, who were held to be entitled to the share in the subject properties owned by Ettukarai Valambars of Kottaiyur. The Sub Court, Ramanathapuram, passed a decree on 30.09.1937.
3. Thereafter, the Sub Court, Devakottai, passed an order in I.A.No. 701 of 1944 in O.S.No.72 of 1933 on 15.01.1945 appointing Sri.S.R.Govinda 19/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 Iyer as Receiver of the suit properties measuring about 2000 Acres of land to effect partition as per the Decree. The Court appointed Receiver was granted with the permission in the order dated 15.01.1945 to dispose of the properties for the discharge of the encumbrances.
4. On 19.11.1956, the Sub Court, Devakottai, closed the final decree application leaving certain properties, which had not been divided in common between all the sharers. The Court appointed Receiver continued to be in management of the subject properties, which had not been divided.
5. In the meanwhile, a Trust, namely, Dr.Alagappa Chettiar College Trust was founded and the Government of Tamil Nadu acquired lands extensively and an area of 252 Acres of land of Kottaiyur Nattars estate was notified for acquisition. The Court appointed Receiver challenged the same and subsequently entered into a compromise with the Government of Tamil Nadu. By the said compromise, the Government dropped the acquisition proceedings in respect of 62.80 Acres of land and the Court appointed Receiver also had given up the claim for enhanced compensation. Subsequently, near about 3.80 Acres of land was notified as an area for 20/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 District Sports Meet by the Government and the Court appointed Receiver was unaware of the same.
6. There were two private temples in the said estate, which were in the dilapidated condition and as per the sentiments and wishes expressed by the Kottaiyur Nattars, the Court appointed Receiver had undertaken the process of construction and repairing works of the said temples. However, on account of paucity of fund, the Court appointed Receiver was not able to continue the renovation works in the said two temples. Thus, a decision was taken to sell 38.70 Acres of land out of 62.80 Acres exempted by the Government from the acquisition proceedings as the said land was filled up with shrubs and it was an uneven ground.
7. The Court appointed Receiver moved the Sub Court by filing I.A.No.30 of 1983 seeking permission to sell the lands for the purpose of completion of the renovation works of the temples and the Sub Court, by order dated 27.01.1983, accorded sanction to sell 38.70 Acres in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, for a sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. A sale deed was executed and out of the said funds, the temples were renovated and 21/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 repairing works were also carried out and thereafter, Kumbabishekam rituals were performed. M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, purchaser of the land measuring 38.70 Acres, reclaimed and levelled the properties by spending a considerable amount and subsequently, found that a portion of the land measuring 3.80 Acres acquired by the Government also formed part of the said sale deed. M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm made a complaint about the said fact to the Court appointed Receiver, in consultation with Kottaiyur Nattars agreed to make good the loss by 5 Acres of land contagious to the rest of the lands. The said area was agreed calculating the loss of land as well as the money spent towards the development of the land and on the stamp duty paid on the sale deeds executed in favour of the buyers of the house sites. In this regard, the Court appointed Receiver filed I.A.No.62 of 1986 in O.S.No.72 of 1933, before the Sub Court, Devakottai, for the ratification of its decision for conveying 5 Acres of land contagious to the land already conveyed on the south side and filed a detailed report setting out the circumstances, which lead to the said decision on 24.01.1986.
8. There were certain allegations against the Court appointed Receiver also. Large scale allegations were made against the Court appointed 22/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 Receiver that he also colluded with the parties and committed certain irregularities. However, this Court, at this length of time, cannot ascertain the truth and correctness of all such allegations made against the Court appointed Receiver during the relevant point of time from the years 1945 to 1986. However, on account of the demise of the Court appointed Receiver Sri.S.R.Govinda Iyer, a new Receiver, namely, Mr.S.Chelladurai was appointed in respect of the estate by the Court in the year 1991. Accordingly, Mr.S.Chelladurai had taken charge as Receiver.
9. In view of the pendency of the application filed by the Receiver before the Court for very long time, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm filed I.A.No. 106 of 1993 for issuing a direction to the Court appointed Receiver to implement the agreement to convey the alternative land. During the year 1995, the Court appointed Receiver Mr.S.Chelladurai changed his stand and made a suggestion that a monetary compensation can be provided to M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm instead of parting with the land and such a decision was taken on account of the length of time and considering the increase of the value of the land measuring 5 Acres. Even at that point of time, there were certain allegations against the previous Receiver. 23/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
10. On 08.03.1995, the learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, directed Court appointed Receiver to measure the lands as existed in the ground and on such measurement, it was found that there was a shortage of 4.60 Acres. Thus, the learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, passed an order sanctioning the Receiver to convey 4.60 Acres of land. The learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, on hearing of I.A.No.62 of 1986, considered two questions that whether M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm could be compensated through monetary benefits instead of land and if land was to be given, which land was to be given as an alternative land and in what manner. The learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, by his order held that it was not acceptable to M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm to receive the monetary compensation. It was held that the alternative land is to be given on the southern side of the land already sold and lying adjacently. Accordingly, the learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, passed the following orders:
“vdBt, ne;j 4 Vf;fh; 60 brz;il Vw;fdBt tpiy bfhLj;Js;s brhj;jpd; bjd;gf;fj;jpy; bjhlh;r;rpahf fw;gf tpehafh; epWtdj;jpw;F BgZeh; fpiuag; gj;jpuk; bfhLf;f cj;jutpLtJ ePjpapd;; ghy; cfe;jjhf nUf;fpwJ. VdBt, BgZeh; Vw;fdBt tpiy bfhLj;j gFjpapy; bjhlh;rr; pahf bjd;gFjpapYs;s 4 Vf;fh; 60 brz;il fw;gf tpehafh; epWtdj;jpw;Bfh mtuhy; epakpf;fg;gLfpd;w egh;fSf;Bfh fpuag;gj;jpuk; vGjpf;bfhLf;f cj;jutpl;L BgZeUf;F mDkjp tHA;fg;gLfpwJ.” 24/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
11. The learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, approved the draft sale deed, on 16.03.1995, filed by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm along with the survey plan annexed therewith showing that the said property lying adjacent to the property already sold on the southern side. The draft sale deed and the plan annexed therewith shows that the land was lying without any encroachment.
12. During the year 1995, one Mr.Karuppiah Ambalam, one of the objectors, preferred C.R.P.No.1283 of 1995, before this Court against the order passed in the application filed by the Court appointed Receiver. Pending the said civil revision petition, some of the Kottaiyur Nattars attempted to encroach upon the said 4.60 Acres of land so as to defeat the rights of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm and the Court appointed Receiver, for the reasons best known to him, did not take any action is also an allegation set out by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. Consequent to the said allegations, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm filed civil suit in O.S.No.34 of 1997, before the Sub Court, Devakottai, against the said objectors representing Kottaiyur Nattars and impleaded the Court appointed Receiver as one of the defendants. 25/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 The said suit was decreed and the appeal preferred against the said Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.12 of 1999 was also dismissed on 08.08.2000. The materials placed before the Court below in the said suit in O.S.No.34 of 1997, such as the report of the Receiver and the report of the Court Commissioner, showed that the said land was lying vacant.
13. This Court, on 23.07.1998, dismissed C.R.P.No.1283 of 1995 by holding that that “the Court need not go into the technicalities and find fault with the procedure and courts are always there only to see that the interest of the parties are well served and justice meted out. In my view what has been done by the Lower Court is the same.”
14. The objector, in C.R.P.No.1283 of 1995, filed S.L.P.No.18618 of 1998 against the above order passed by this Court and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn by the Honourable Supreme Court on 16.04.1999. The said objector again preferred a review petition in Rev.P.No.34 of 1999 against the above order passed by this Court and the said review petition was also dismissed as devoid of merits on 23.08.1999. 26/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
15. On 02.05.2002, some other Nattars filed an objection in I.A.No. 62 of 1986 stating that the Court appointed Receiver was only permitted to sell the land and thus, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm can get the relief only by making an application by impleading all the sharers. The Court appointed Receiver filed a memo seeking suitable direction for avoiding the grant of alternative land as the land prices had gone up.
16. The learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, passed an order directing the Court appointed Receiver to value the said land as well as the other lands and to submit a report, after enquiring all the sharers and to find out alternative ways to compromise the shortage of lands. In all force, in was contended that M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm was prevented from enjoying the fruits and decision of the Courts. Thus, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm filed a civil revision petition in C.R.P.(PD) No.1230 of 2002, before this Court and in the said civil revision petition, an interim order was granted by this Court on 19.07.2002. Near about 15 persons filed a miscellaneous application in C.M.P.No.15715 of 2003 in the said civil revision petition seeking to implead themselves as respondents in the said civil revision petition and this Court dismissed the said miscellaneous petition holding as follows: 27/72
http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 “there is no justification on the part of the Petitioners to come forward to testify the validity of the order passed by the Lower Court on the revision filed by the 1st respondent, having failed to make any representation during the long pendency of the above application and having woken up now from the deep slumber some of the community members number 15 out of 146 who are the Petitioners herein, in piecemeal, have come forward to file this impleading petition to have a say for themselves being interested parties and they would pray for the said relief.....Since the interest of the community is well taken care of by the Receiver appointed by the court and on further consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the court has passed its order, the above CRP could very well be conducted by the parties who are already present and this court does not feel it necessary to implead the Petitioners as parties to the CRP proceedings in a piecemeal manner.”
17. Challenging the abovesaid dismissal order, the said fifteen persons preferred an appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court of India in C.A.No.8100 of 2004 and the Apex Court, by order dated 13.12.2004, disposed of the appeal with a direction as follows:28/72
http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 “the Appellants are allowed to be impleaded in the Revision Petition with a condition that they can only participate in the identification of land of 4 acres 60 cents which is to be given to the Respondents as per the earlier orders of the court. They shall not be entitled to urge any contention or points which are concluded by earlier orders.”
18. On 08.07.2005, this Court finally heard C.R.P.(PD) No.1230 of 2002 and allowed the same by holding as follows:
“8. Considering the large Estate, and its potential, escalation of price day in and day out, some of the Nattars thought it fit to file a suit in O.S.No.143 of 1998 to declare that the order passed in I.A.No.62 of 1986 is void and not binding on them, which we are not now concerned: at present. Because of the disturbance caused or the attempt made by the Nattars the revision petitioner also filed a suit to restrain them from encroaching the property. In view of the stand taken by the trustees of Nattar committee and considering the pendency of CRP No.1283 of 1995 at that time, the suit was decreed. Thus, it appears, the petitioner's right was not only confirmed in the suit, but also in the CRP. This being the position, to have regular sale deed, the revision petitioner filed a draft sale deed, as submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.29/72
http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 It was also approved and as such, there may not be any impediment for the Receiver, to execute the sale deed. However there was some delaying tactics, at the instance of the Nattars, causing legal notice also.
...
...
...
14....I should say emphatically that the Learned Subordinate Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction and limit, since in a way there is an attempt, atleast, hidden in nature to rase the settled order or atleast to make some aberrations over the order, which he is not entitled to do so.
Further receiver also had unnecessarily raised certain clarifications, which are unwarranted on the fact of the record, considering the Apex Court order. The fact, some of the people belong to Nattar community had filed a suit questioning the order passed in IA No.62 of 1986, certainly will not give leverage, as observed in the order, to the learned judge to reopen the Pandora box.
15. In fact, he should have heavily come upon the Receiver, to perform his duty as directed within his limit, though it is permissible for him to seek clarification by way of guidelines, not suggesting to nullify the previous order, at the instance of somebody. If this kind of objection in a case of this nature, which had commenced elswehere in 30/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 the year 1933, is entertained only for the asking, then the end would be indefinite and the people, who had purchased the property under the hope of getting possession will be deprived of their right, thereby losing faith in the judicial system, which should be avoided and the reasons are hereunder.
...
...
...
20. It is admitted position that th eorder passed by this Court in IA No.62 of 1986 reached finality, wherein all kind of objections were raised, which are sought to be raised even now also. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, for which there is no answer from the other side, the order in IA No. 62 of 1986 should be strictly carried out or implemented by the Receiver, who is acting under the Authority of the Court and in pursuance of the same, the revision petitioner is also entitled to the sale deed, for which it is said, the draft sale deed is approved. The trial court, without considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, once again gave a chance to the objectors, to open settled case, which should be set at naught by allowing the revision.....” 31/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
19. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD) No. 1230 of 2002, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm filed a memo, on 28.07.2005, before the learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, to execute and register the sale deed as the Court appointed Receiver did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Near about 19 persons filed a suit before the Sub Court, Devakottai, against M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, for a declaration that the order passed in I.A.No.62 of 1986 was not valid as it was obtained by collusion. The learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, passed an order refusing to register the suit. The appeal filed in A.S.No.3 of 2006 preferred before the District Court was also dismissed subsequently, on 14.03.2007. The learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, passed an order on 02.03.2006 in I.A.No.448 of 2005 holding that the Court appointed Receiver has to measure the land in the presence of the parties and execute the order passed in I.A.No.62 of 1986, on or before 31.03.2006 and accordingly, adjourned the matter to 31.03.2006.
20. Challenging the said order, Mr.Alagappan Ambalam and another filed a civil revision petition in C.R.P.No.278 of 2006 before this Court. The Court appointed Receiver surveyed the property through the Taluk Surveyor and 4.60 Acres of land was identified and demarcated. Out of the said 4.60 32/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 Acres of land, a portion measuring 1.33 Acres of land was separately demarcated as certain pockets of the said land had already been allowed to be encroached by constructing structures.
21. The allegation of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm is that the Court appointed Receiver encouraged such encroachments and he had not initiated any action against all such encroachments. The Nattars also sold the said portions of the land in violation of the Court orders and an allegation was raised that the Court appointed Receiver actively colluded with Kottaiyur Nattars in order to defeat the legal rights conferred on M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm in respect of the lands sold by the Court appointed Receiver with the permission of the Court.
22. This Court passed an order, on 13.04.2006, in C.R.P.No.278 of 2006 directing the Court appointed Receiver to issue notice to all the parties and to expedite the process. On 13.04.2006, the Court appointed Receiver filed a report along with the Surveyor's report and plan, before the Sub Court, Devakottai. The learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, by order dated 21.04.2006, rejected I.A.No.448 of 2005, on the ground that the Court cannot execute the 33/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 sale deed, however, issued a direction to the Court appointed Receiver to execute the sale deed within a period of 15 days as per the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD) No.1230 of 2002, which was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court.
23. Mr.K.R.Ramachandran, one amongst 15 persons, preferred C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.740 of 2006 against the order dated 29.08.2006, directing the Court appointed Receiver to act as per the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court and the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD) No.1230 of 2002. The said civil revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 13.09.2007 affirming the order of the learned Sub Judge, Devakottai. This Court dismissed C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.740 of 2006 and made an observation that the Court appointed Receiver can find out the alternative area against such area on the southern side adjacent to the area already sold. However, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, by way of an affidavit, dated 21.09.2007, did not agree to the said suggestion, but, offered to pay the encroachers a reasonable cost of constructions, if they vacate on their own or to adopt due process to eject them, after the sale deed is executed in their favour. 34/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
24. M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm consistently raised allegations against the encroachers, who encroached the land sold to them with the collusion of the Court appointed Receiver. It is contended that by dismissing C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.740 of 2006, this Court affirmed the land sold to M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. The draft sale deed was also approved on 16.03.1995 itself. However, the Court appointed Receiver did not take any action for the execution of the sale deed pursuant to the draft sale deed approved on 16.03.1995 by the Court. The Court appointed Receiver contrarily had filed a fresh draft sale deed. In the revised draft sale deed, the Court appointed Receiver had unnecessarily incorporated the term that there is no adequate consideration to the transaction. Further, the Court appointed Receiver erroneously had stated that the entire property is being encroached by Kottaiyur Nattars, thereby attempting to create the non-existence encroachment over the entire property. Thus, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm raised large scale allegations against the conduct of the Court appointed Receiver in dealing with the property, which was already sold in their favour by way of the sale deed of the year 1983.
35/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
25. M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm repeatedly solicited the attention of this Court by stating that at the time when the draft sale deed was prepared and approved by the Court, there was no encroachment in the entire extent of the land measuring 4.60 Acres and the said land was vacant. The contention is that the Court appointed Receive in collusion with some encroachers encroached upon the land measuring 1.33 Acres, even the said encroachment was in violation of the injunction order passed in O.S.No.34 of 1997, filed by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm against the Court appointed Receiver and Kottaiyur Nattars.
26. Taking into consideration the arguments of the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of all the parties and considering the fact that large scale allegations are made by the respective parties against each other and further large scale collusions and irregularities were raised against the Court appointed Receiver, this Court thought fit to re-measure the land so as to form a clear opinion about the existence of the property, which is in question and was sold in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. 36/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
27. When the Court appointed Receiver raised allegations against the purchaser of the land measuring 38.70 Acres M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, the purchaser M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm raised large scale allegations of collusion and irregularities against the Court appointed Receiver. The other parties to the litigation were also raising allegations against M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. When such allegations were raised between the parties, this Court cannot conduct a trial for the purpose of establishing such allegations. Further, the litigations are pending for a considerable length of time and the parties to the litigations are also frustrated on account of the long delay occurred in disposal of these cases, despite the fact that directions were granted by the Court at the initial stage approving the draft sale deed and for the execution of the sale deed in favour of the purchaser.
28. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that long pendency of cases is the genuine concern in the justice delivery system as well as would cause prejudice to the interest of the litigants. Long delay in disposing the cases is occurring not only at the instance of the Courts, but also at the instance of the litigants. Calculated and commercial mindset developed by some of the litigants providing them to block the early disposal of the cases. 37/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 Legal brains are pressed into service for the purpose of frustrating the litigations pending before the Court. For instance, non-cooperation of the respective learned counsels to proceed with the case is also one of the reason for adjournments. Technical way of seeking adjournments is considerably in growing mode. Thus, it is not as if Courts alone are the reason for the long pendency of the cases. Early disposal of the cases involves various factors. The heart and soul of the justice delivery system is to provide adequate opportunity to all the parties and to ensure free, fair and impartial hearing. In the process of providing such opportunities, undue advantageous are taken by the litigants or by the lawyers and sometimes, out of the laziness, or at the instance of the Courts. Various factors are involved in the process of speedy disposal of the cases by the Courts across the country. Thus, it is imminent that the parties to the litigation, lawyers, who all are appearing for the respective parties as well as the Presiding Officers of the Court must together cooperate for the purpose of speedy disposal of the cases. The statistics of our great Nation shows that large number of pendency of cases are causing a greatest concern for deciding the rights of the respective parties, who all are approaching the Court of law.
38/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
29. The case on hand is a classic one, where frequent interventions are made by several parties by filing interlocutory applications before the Court below and civil revision petitioners before this Court, which caused delay. The conduct of the partner of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, namely, Mr.V.Lakshmanan, is also to be recorded in view of the fact that he contributed for the delay in passing orders in these cases. Whenever the matter is taken up for hearing by this Court, he used to raise large scale allegations against the parties, lawyers as well as the Bench, by sending letters and documents to the Judges. He also prevented the earlier Benches of this Court from adjudicating the case. On account of the conduct of Mr.V.Lakshmanan, partner of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, some of the earlier Benches recused from hearing of the case.
30. When the case was allotted to this Bench by the Honourable Administrative Judge of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, the partner Mr.V.Lakshmanan of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm had sent booklets containing documents and letters praising this Bench. Soon after an order was passed to measure the land through the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, then next day onwards, the very same 39/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 partner Mr.V.Lakshmanan of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm started writing letters accusing this Bench of bias and insinuated to recuse from hearing of the case.
31. This Bench has no hesitation in deciding the case in view of the fact that the mind of the Court is clear that this Bench is noway connected with the affairs of the parties either directly or indirectly. Under those circumstances, this Bench proceeded with the case by hearing the parties. The continuous letters and documents sent by Mr.V.Lakshmanan, partner of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm were not taken into consideration in view of the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 470.
32. When the case was listed for hearing, the partner Mr.V.Lakshmanan of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, who praised this Bench at the first instance, had started accusing, after passing an order to measure the land through the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the case of Subrata Roy 40/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 Sahara (cited supra) squarely applies to the present case also. The Honourable Supreme Court in Subrata Roy Sahara (cited supra) in an unequivocal terms has held as follows:
“The present Bench was also accused of having a predisposition in respect of the controversy which was on the basis of a strong commitment of the Bench towards the “other side”. In terms of the order dated 31-8-2012, the only gainer on the other side was the Government of India. If the “other side”, was the Government of India, there is certainly no substance in the aspersion cast on the Bench. Just the above aspect of the matter is sufficient to burst the bubble of all the carefully crafted insinuations systematically offloaded, by the learned counsel, for effect and impact. The Bench would have declined to recuse itself from the matter, even if the “other side” had been a private party. For the oath of office of the Supreme Court requires the Bench to discharge its obligations, without fear or favour. The Supreme Court therefore also commends to all courts, to similarly repulse all baseless and unfounded insinuations, unless of course, they should not be hearing a particular matter, for reasons of their direct or indirect involvement. The benchmark that justice must not only be done but should also appear to be done, has to be preserved at all costs.” 41/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
33. It is pertinent to state that though the land measuring 38.70 Acres was sold by the Court appointed Receiver in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm in the year 1983, the said land was measured, handed over and a sale deed was executed by the Court appointed Receiver at that point of time. However, the litigations emanated on account of the complaint made by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm that there was a shortfall in the property sold in their favour and the shortfall was identified during the subsequent measurement of the property. Thus, the entire litigations on hand emerged from and out of the complaint made by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm that there was a shortfall in the property consequent to the acquisition proceedings, which were initiated and a portion of the acquisition proceedings were subsequently dropped. However, the measurement was taken long back. The correctness or otherwise of the measurement though accepted by the Sub Court, it is not made clear whether the subsequent developments were considered or any other subsequent measurements were taken in an accurate manner so as to ascertain the field situation in order to consider the complaint initially given by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm in respect of the shortfall in the property sold in their favour, measuring 38.70 Acres. In this regard, it is 42/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 relevant to consider the allegations made against the Court appointed Receiver also. The facts and circumstances reveals that there were certain collusions between the parties so also with the Court appointed Receiver and the modus operandi or otherwise is unable to be culled out by this Court, in view of the doubts raised in the minds of this Court that the field situation as well as the measurement so the land sold in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm are to be ascertained so as to form an opinion whether the land sold was properly measured and handed over and what exactly is the shortfall as per the complaint of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm and any further actions are required in these issues.
34. Contrarily, the entire litigations were progressed believing the complaint given by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm that there is a shortfall in the property sold in their favour during the year 1983 by the Court appointed Receiver. The Courts believed that there was a shortfall and on account of the shortfall, the Court appointed Receiver must provide an alternative land to compensate M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. Thus, the entire case was proceeded on that basis without verifying the fact that the land was re-measured after a considerable length of time and the field situations are made clear or not. In 43/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 order to cull out the truth behind the complaint and to ascertain the extent of the land sold with reference to the sale deed, dated 07.02.1983, this Court had taken a decision to appoint a responsible official from the Department of Survey and Land Records, Government of Tamil Nadu.
35. Under these circumstances, this Court passed an order on 12.07.2019, directing the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Collectorate, Sivagangai District, to engage qualified surveyors for the purpose of measuring the entire portion of the land sold out by the Court appointed Receiver in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, by way of the sale deed dated 07.02.1983. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, was also present before this Court and agreed to measure the lands within the stipulated time enabling this Court to understand the exact disputes between the parties and provide complete justice to the litigants before this Court.
36. The circumstances warranted for this Court for ordering measurement of the lands sold by the Court appointed Receiver to M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm in view of the large scale allegations and in view 44/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 of the fact that several orders have been passed by various Courts in piecemeal, the same would do no service to the cause of justice at this length of time as the parties have complicated the issues by adding new disputes. Thus, this Court thought fit to measure the lands sold by the Court appointed Receiver to M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm to an extent of 38.70 Acres and in the event of any deficiency or shortfall, suitable orders can be passed compensating M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm in the manner known to law.
37. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, an effort had been taken by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, who in turn completed the job and submitted a report, dated 29.07.2019, before this Court and it is appropriate to consider the same.
38. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, vide proceedings, dated 22.07.2019, addressed a letter to the District Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, to provide protection for the purpose of measuring the entire land.
45/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
39. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, issued a memo, on 23.07.2019, directing the Divisional Inspector of Survey and Land Records to organize the Taluk Surveyors at Karaikudi, commence the measurement process, complete the same and submit a report so as to place it before this Court.
40. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, vide proceedings, dated 23.07.2019, requested the Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, Chepauk, Chennai-5, to provide electronic measurement equipment for the purpose of measuring the lands in a minute and accurate manner and to complete the exercise within the time limit prescribed. It is further stated that the land measuring 38.70 Acres as per the sale deed of the year 1983 is to be measured and in the event of utilizing Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) equipment, the measurements would be accurate. Accordingly, Dr.R.Selvaraj, Director of Survey and Land Records, Chepauk, Chennai-5, addressed a letter to the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, vide proceedings, dated 24.07.2019, granting permission and accordingly, allotted Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Sub Inspector of Survey and Land 46/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 Records and three Surveyors along with DGPS equipment for the purpose of measuring the disputed land measuring 38.70 Acres.
41. As per the orders of this Court, the Court appointed Receiver Mr.S.Chelladurai paid Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for the purpose of meeting out the expenditures to the Surveyors and the said amount was handed over to the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, who in turn completed the job of measuring the land to the extent of 38.70 Acres as per the sale deed of the year 1983 and submitted a report on 29.07.2019 and it is relevant to extract the report hereunder along with the map:
“ghh;it 1y; fhZk; khz;g[kpF ePjpkd;w cj;jput[ kw;Wk; ghh;it 2-y; fhZk; TLjy; muR tHf;fwpqhpd; fojj;jpd;go ePjpkd;w cj;jutpy; brhy;yg;gl;l Counsels midtUf;Fk; Message kw;Wk; whatsapp Kyk; jfty; bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ. ghh;it 4y; fhZk; fojj;jpd; thapyhf khtl;l fhty; fz;fhzpg;ghsh; mth;fSf;F epy msitg; gzpapd; BghJ Bghjpa ghJfhg;g[ tHA;ff; Bfhhp bjhptpf;fg;gl;L mjd; bjhlh;r;rpahf gjpt[ gj;jpu vz;.167/1983 ehs;.07.02.1983y; fz;Ls;s brhj;J tpguj;jpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s ehd;F khYf;Fl;gl;l fw;gf tpehafh; ghh;k; epWtdj;jpduhy; fpiuak; bgwg;gl;l 38.70 Vf;fh; miktpl gFjp tUtha;47/72
http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 MtzA;fspy; rhpghh;ff; g;gl;lJ.
Bkw;fz;l brhj;J tpguj;jpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s giHa rh;Bt vz;.9/1A1 gFjp jw;BghJ ej;jk; epy msitapy; gphpf;fg;gl;L epy msit bra;ag;gl;L g[jpa rh;Bt vz;fs; 172 Kjy; 181 tiu 199 Kjy; 202 tiu, 204, 207 tiu, 207 Kjy; 215 tiua[k,; giHa g[yvz;.9/1B cl;gphpt[ bra;ag;gl;L jw;BghJ 9/1B1, 9/1B2 vdt[k; tUtha;
Jiw MtzA;fspy; nd;iwa epiyapy; gjpt[fs; cs;sJ.
brhj;J tpguj;jpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s gFjp kidg;gphpt[fshf gphpf;fg;gl;L k.g.(nuhk) vz;.20/83 ehs;. 23.05.1983d;go rhf;Bfhl;il Cuhl;rp xd;wpa mYtyf Mizauhy; mA;fPfhpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
Bkw;fz;l kidg;gphptpy; kidg;gphpt[ 38.70 Vf;fh;, Bfhug;gl;l kidfs;-469, mikf;fg;gl;l kidfs;-441 vdt[k; njpy; fy;ahz kz;lgk;-3468 r.kP FHe;ijfs; eyikak;-882 r.kP, FHe;ijfs; tpisahLkplk;-2830 r.kP, gog;gfk;, jpiuauA;fk;, kw;witfs;-2546 r.kP, jghy; epiyak;-880 r.kP Bfhtpy; kw;Wk; jpUtpHh nlk;-4880 r.kP, Muk;ggs;sp kw;Wk; tpisahLk; nlk;-2256 r.kP, eh;rhp gs;sp kw;Wk; tpisahLkplk; - 2292 r.kP, g[A;fh-600 r.kP, filfs;-1490 r.kP vd Fwpg;gpl;L tiuglk;
mA;fPfhpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
khz;g[kpF ePjpkd;w cj;jputpy; bjhptpj;Js;sgo (ELECTRONIC MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENTS) kpddZ epy msitg; gzpfs; Bkw;bfhs;tjw;fhf Bkw;fz;l fUtpiaa[k,; mDgtk; tha;e;j gzpahsh;fisa[k; mDg;gplf; Bfhhp brd;id epy msit kw;Wk; epythpj;jpl;l 48/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 naf;Feh; mth;fSf;F ghh;it 6-y; fhZk; fojj;jpd; thapyhf bjhptpf;fg;gl;L, ghh;it 7-y; fhZk; epy msit kw;Wk; epythpj;jpl;l naf;Fehpd; fojj;jpd;go BtYhh; khtl;l BtYhh; efu msitg;gzp Ma;thsh; jiyikapy; xU rhh; Ma;thsh; kw;Wk; Kd;W epy msth;fs; bkhj;jk; Ie;J gzpahsh;fisf; bfhz;L tifapl;L g{Bfhs epiyf;fyd; fUtp (DGPS)-d; Kyk; msitg; gzpfis 26.07.2019 md;W epiwBtw;wpl bjhptpj;J cj;jput[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
Ghh;it 5-y; fhZk; cj;jput[g;go Bjtf;Bfhl;il Bfhl;l Ma;thsh; jiyikapy; epy msitg;
gzpahshh;fisf; bfhz;L epy msitg; gzpia JtA;f kpd;dq;ry; Kyk; Bfhl;l Ma;thsUf;F bjhptpf;fg;gl;L 24.07.2019 md;W fhiy Rkhh; 8.00 kzpastpy; epy msitg; gzp JtA;fg;gl;L brhj;J tpguj;jpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s ehd;F khYf;Fl;gl;l jw;BghJ kidg;gphpt[fshf gphpf;fg;gl;L fw;gf tpehafh; efh; vd bgahplg;gl;l miktplg;gFjp vy;iyfs; eph;zak; bra;a[k; gzp bjhlh;e;J Bkw;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ. hprPth;/tHf;fwpqh; jpU.v!;.bry;yj;Jiu kw;Wk; Counsels jpUthsh;fs; J.Mde;jFkhh;, epuq;rd; S.Fkhh;, H.y&;kprA;fh;, D.ey;yj;jk;gp, K.tPug;bgUkhs; MfpBahh; rhh;ghf mth;fsJ fl;rpf;fhuh;fs; cld; nUe;jhh;fs;. BkYk; jpU.gp.byl;Rkzd; (gA;Fjhuh;) fw;gf tpehafh; Tl;LepWtdk; vd;gth; bgauhy; rptfA;if cjtp naf;Feh; rh;Bt vd Kfthpapl;L nizg;g[fSld; fojk; 25.07.2019 md;W fpilf;fg;bgw;Ws;sJ.
epy msit kw;Wk; epythpj;jpl;l naf;Feh; mth;fspd; 49/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 cj;jputpd;go DGPS fUtpfisf; bfhz;L mstPL bra;a[k; gzpf;fhd fl;lzk; xU ghapz;Lf;F U.1000/- tPjk; 17 ghapz;LfSf;F bkhj;jk; U.17000/- (Ugha; gjpBdHhapuk;) tR{y; bra;ag;gl;L naf;Feh; mth;fspd; cj;jputpy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;l gzpahsh;fs; thapyhf DGPS fUtpfisf; bfhz;L 26.07.2019 md;W gzpfs; epiwBtw;wp fzpzp Kyk; tiuglk; jahh; bra;ag;gl;lJ.
nizf;fg;gl;Ls;s tiuglj;jpy; A kw;Wk; B vd Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s gFjp (Cvd Fwpg;gpl;L KUfjhz;lth; Bfhtpy; vd bgah; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s gFjp ePA;fyhf) fpiua Mtzj;jpy; brhj;J tpguj;jpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s 38.70 Vf;fh; bkhj;j gug;gsit cs;slf;fpa gFjpahFk;.
tiuglj;jpy; A vd Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s gFjp (Cvd Fwpg;gpl;L KUfjhz;lth; Bfhtpy; vd bgah; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s 1.18 Vf;fh; gug;gst[ bfhz;l gFjp ePA;fyhf) 139360.32 rJu kPl;LUf;F 34.42 Vf;fuhFk; ne;j gFjp kl;LBk mDgtj;jpy; cs;sJ.
fpiua Mtz brhj;J tpguj;jpy Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s bkhj;jk; 38.70 Vf;fhpy; Bkw;fz;l 34.42 Vf;fh; mDgtj;jpy; cs;s gFjp ePA;fyhf kPjk; 4.28 Vf;fh; tiuglj;jpy; vd Fwpg;gpl;L FWf;F Bfhol;L fhl;lg;gl;Ls;s gFjp fpiuak; bgw;w fw;gf tpehafh; epWtdj;jpd; mDgtj;jpy; ny;iy, khwhf mHfg;gh gy;fiyf;fHf mwptpay; gpshf;
(Science Block) ehd;F gf;fKk; fhk;gt[z;l; Rth; vGg;gg;gl;l fl;ol tshfj;jpw;Fs; Bkw;F gf;fk; cs;s xU gFjpahFk; vd;gij gzpt[ld; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpBwd;.” 50/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 51/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
42. The report, dated 29.07.2019, filed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, reveals that M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm is in possession and enjoyment of the property measuring 34.42 Acres out of 38.70 Acres, which was registered through the sale deed of the year 1983. The balance extent of land measuring 4.28 Acres, which is marked as “B” in the map, which was sold in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm by the Court appointed Receiver is not within the possession and enjoyment of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. Contrarily, the said portion of the land measuring 4.28 Acres is now with the possession and enjoyment of the Alagappa University and the land is situated near the Science Block of the University. The University constructed a compound wall in respect of the portion of the land measuring 4.28 Acres, which was sold out in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm by the Court appointed Receiver during the year 1983.
43. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Court appointed Receiver as well as by the other respective learned counsels that the University encroached upon the land belongs to M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm 52/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 during the year 2003-2004, for which the Court appointed Receiver is not responsible. Relying on the survey conducted by Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Court appointed Receiver submitted that the land was measured properly during the relevant point of time and the sale deed was executed on 07.02.1983 and possession was also handed over to M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. The encroachment made by Alagappa University during the year 2003-2004 is to be dealt with by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm in accordance with law. As far as the Court appointed Receiver is concerned, he has measured the land and executed the sale deed as per the schedule of property mentioned in the sale deed and there was no infirmity and accordingly, no further consideration is required and the entire effort taken to provide alternative land is based on the erroneous understanding and on certain mistaken facts. Thus, suitable orders are to be passed granting liberty to M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm to evict the encroachers from the portion of the land, which was sold by the Court appointed Receiver in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm.
53/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
44. The learned counsel, who appeared at the first instance on behalf of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, argued the matter elaborately. However, subsequently, he made a representation that M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm wants to engage some other counsel. But, the learned counsel on account of the fact that he is on record and appeared before this Court. The detailed additional typed set of papers as well as the dates and events filed on behalf of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm contain all the details as well as the grounds.
45. All these litigations were developed mainly based on the concept that the land measuring 38.70 Acres was sold by the Court appointed Receiver in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, by way of a sale deed dated 07.02.1983. However, the Government acquired a portion of the land and subsequently, the said acquisition was dropped in respect of one portion and on measurement, it was informed that there were some differences in the area, which was already covered under the sale deed of the year 1983. In other words, it was contended by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm that a portion of the land measuring 4.60 Acres was not available and an alternative land is to be 54/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 provided by the Receiver. All along the litigations were proceeded only on the ground that there was a claim by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm that an alternative land is to be provided in respect of the shortfall in the area of the land sold out. However, this Court on account of the allegations and counter allegations raised by the parties against each other, had taken a decision to re-measure the land for the purpose of providing complete justice. This apart, the sale deed was executed in the year 1983 and various cases were filed by the respective parties and the confusion arose as to whether the lands sold by the Court appointed Receiver was correct, if so, to what extent. Further, whether the land was measured properly and the same was performed during the appropriate time. The measurements were taken many years ago and based on such measurements, the litigations were continued for years together.
46. M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm taken a stand that an alternative land is to be provided by the Court appointed Receiver. The Court appointed Receiver per contra contended that he is not liable to convey any further land. Under these circumstances, the Government authority, namely, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, was directed to re- 55/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 measure the land and submit a report so as to ascertain the factual position enabling this Court to provide complete justice to all the parties, who all are before this Court.
47. A perusal of the report submitted by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, reveals that the total extent of land executed through the sale deed of the year 1983 is very much identifiable. The map enclosed along with the report, with reference to the old survey numbers as new survey numbers, unambiguously portrays that the entire extent of land measuring 38.70 Acres falls in the same area and a portion of the land measuring 4.28 Acres is with the possession and enjoyment of Alagappa University and they have constructed a compound wall. Thus, now, it is made clear that the portion of the land measuring 4.28 Acres sold out in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm by the Court appointed Receiver is under the encroachment of Alagappa University. The said encroachments were made during the year 2003-2004, many years after the execution of the sale deed on 07.02.1983. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the question of providing any alternative land in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm does not arise at all. 56/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 Undoubtedly, the claim of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm with reference to the sale deed, dated 07.02.1983, is genuine. The rights of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm is, undoubtedly, to an extent of 38.70 Acres of land as clearly stated in the sale deed dated 07.02.1983. Thus, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm cannot claim any land over and above the schedule of the property mentioned in the said sale deed. Accordingly, the Court appointed Receiver has to ascertain whether 38.70 Acres of land was measured and handed over to the purchaser M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm during the relevant point of time in the year 1983. Though various developments were made on account of the complications created by the respective parties at their end, this Court considered that the issues are to be settled with a practical approach. Under these circumstances, the order was passed to re-measure the land by using advanced measurement equipment. Thus, the report of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District is to be considered for the purpose of deciding the disputes raised by the parties to the case on hand.
48. This being the facts and circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the entire area of the land sold out by the Court appointed Receiver in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, 57/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 through the registered sale deed dated 07.02.1983, is very much in existence and there is no shortfall in respect of the measurements as per the said sale deed. However, the portion of the land measuring 4.28 Acres, which is marked as “B” in the map attached to the report of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, reveals that the said portion marked as “B” is now with the possession and enjoyment of Alagappa University. Accordingly, this Court is of an opinion that the encroachers are to be evicted by following the due process of law. Admittedly, Alagappa University is not a party to this litigation. Now, the new fact regarding encroachment has been identified during the course of measuring the entire land of 38.70 Acres. Thus, the persons, who all are under encroachment of “B” portion of the land are to be evicted. This being the factum now established before this Court, it is to be declared that M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm is the absolute owner of the land measuring 38.70 Acres, which was sold out by the Court appointed Receiver by way of the sale deed, dated 07.02.1983. The entire area of 38.70 Acres sold out in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm is identifiable with reference to the map filed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District on 29.07.2019 along with the survey report. Accordingly, M/s.Karpagavinayagar 58/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 Firm is entitled for possession and enjoyment of the entire property measuring 38.70 Acres, as per the sale deed dated 07.02.1983. In respect of the encroached portion measuring 4.28 Acres is concerned, which is marked as “B” in the said map, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm is entitled to initiate all appropriate actions to evict the encroachers by following the due process of law. It is made clear that M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm being the absolute owner of the land measuring 38.70 Acres is entitled to deal with the property in the manner known to law as per the sale deed dated 07.02.1983. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm is at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings for eviction of the encroachers in the manner known to law. Consequently, the following orders are passed in respect of the litigations filed by the respective parties.
49. C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006:
The civil revision petition in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006 is filed by Mr.Ki.AR.AL.Alagappan Ambalam and Mr.A.Somasundaram @ Krishnappan, sharers of Ettukarai Valambars of Kottaiyur, challenging the order, dated 02.03.2006 made in I.A.No.448 of 2005 in I.A.No.62 of 1986 in O.S.No.72 of 1933, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, wherein the 59/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 interlocutory application was allowed granting sanction to the Court appointed Receiver to execute sale deed for 4.60 Acres in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. Thereafter, the learned Sub Judge, Devakoattai, directed the Court appointed Receiver to measure the property in the presence of all the parties and execute the order in I.A.No.62 of 1986 in O.S.No.72 of 1933 on or before 31.03.2006.
50. In view of the decision taken by this Court that the entire extent of the land measuring 38.70 Acres as per the sale deed, dated 07.02.1983, is very much identifiable and the portion of the said land measuring 4.28 Acres is under the encroachment of Alagappa University, the Court appointed Receiver has no obligation to part with any other further land in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. In other words, the land measuring 4.28 Acres identified for execution of the sale deed in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm now becomes unnecessary. Accordingly, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm is at liberty to institute appropriate actions for eviction of encroachers, based on the sale deed executed by the Court appointed Receiver on 07.02.1983 in respect of the encroached portion of the land, which is marked as “B”in the map annexed along with the report of the Assistant Director of Survey and 60/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 Land Records, Sivagangai. Thus, the order, dated 02.03.2006 made in I.A.No. 448 of 2005 in I.A.No.62 of 1986 in O.S.No.72 of 1933, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Devakottai, need not be acted upon and the same is set aside.
51. Accordingly, the civil revision petition in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 278 of 2006 stands allowed.
52. C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1259 of 2009:
The civil revision petition in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1259 of 2009 is filed by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm to set aside the petition and orders in I.A.No.295 of 2005 in I.A.No.448 of 2005 in I.A.No.62 of 1986 in O.S.No.72 of 1933, dated 15.09.2006, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Devakottai, on the ground that no draft sale deed is required.
53. In view of the decision taken by this Court that no additional lands required to be registered in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm over and above the land measuring 38.70 Acres, which is now identified as per the report of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai, no further consideration is required in respect of the grounds raised in C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.1259 of 2009.
61/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
54. Accordingly, C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1259 of 2009 stands dismissed.
55. Rev.Apln.(MD) No.7 of 2006:
The order dated 08.07.2005 passed in C.R.P.(PD) No.1230 of 2002 is sought to be reviewed by Mr.K.R.Ramachandran and 14 others, who all are the respondents in C.R.P.(PD) No.1230 of 2002.
56. The civil revision petition in C.R.P.(PD) No.1230 of 2002 filed by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm was allowed with reference to its claim that the additional land measuring 4.60 Acres is to be conveyed by the Court appointed Receiver. Pursuant to the survey report of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, the entire land sold out in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, through the sale deed dated 07.02.1983, is identified and the portion of the land measuring 4.28 Acres is encroached by Alagappa University and M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm is at liberty to institute appropriate eviction proceedings to evict the encroacher from the portion of the land sold in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm 62/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 through the sale deed dated 07.02.1983, the present review application deserves to be considered.
57. Accordingly, the order dated 08.07.2005, passed in C.R.P.(PD) No.1230 of 2002 is set aside. Rev.Apln.(MD) No.7 of 2006 stands allowed. Consequently, C.R.P.(PD) No.1230 of 2002 stands dismissed.
58. Rev.Apln.(MD) Nos.39 and 40 of 2007:
These two review applications are filed by Mr.Ki.AR.AL.Alagappan Ambalam and another seeking to review the interim orders passed by this Court on 21.09.2007 and 13.09.2007 respectively, in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006.
59. In view of the fact that C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006 was allowed by this Court, the interim orders passed in the said civil revision petition became lapsed and accordingly, no further orders are required in respect of these two review applications.
60. Accordingly, Rev.Apln.(MD) Nos.39 and 40 of 2007 stand closed. 63/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
61. Rev.Apln.(MD) No.48 of 2007:
The review application is filed by Mr.K.R.Ramachandran and 14 others, seeking to review the order dated 13.09.2007, passed in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.740 of 2006.
62. The civil revision petition in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.740 of 2006 was filed by the review petitioners seeking to set aside the order dated 29.08.2006 made in I.A.No.448 of 2005 in I.A.No.62 of 1986 in O.S.No.72 of 1933, on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai. The said civil revision petition was dismissed based on the orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in C.A.No.8100 of 2004, dated 13.12.2004, which is extracted hereunder:
“The High Court's order is set aside. The Appellants are allowed to be impleaded in the Revision Petition with the condition that they can only participate in the identification of land of 4 acres 60 cents which is to be given to the respondents as per the earlier orders of the Court. They shall not be entitled to urge any contention or point which are concluded by earlier orders. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.” 64/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
63. In view of the fact that the Honourable Supreme Court had not adjudicated the merits and demerits of the case and passed an order permitting the appellants Mr.K.R.Ramachandran and others to be impleaded as parties in the civil revision petition with a condition that they can only participate in the process of identification of the land measuring 4.28 Acres, which is to be given to M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm as per the earlier orders of this Court. However, the rights of the parties, with reference to the sale deed dated 07.02.1983, executed by the Court appointed Receiver as well as the measurements taken in this regard were not adjudicated by the Honourable Supreme Court. In view of the fact that this Court ordered for the re-
measurement of the entire land through the competent Government Authority, namely, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, the grounds raised in the present review petition deserve no further consideration as this Court has now proceeded based on the revised measurement taken and based on the survey report submitted by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District. 65/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
64. The Trial Court passed an order in I.A.No.62 of 1986 directing the Court appointed Receiver to execute the sale deed in respect of 4.60 Acres, which order was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1230 of 2002, against which, C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.740 of 2006 was filed and the same was also dismissed. Thus, Rev.Apln.(MD) No.48 of 2007 is filed.
65. In view of the fact that the Court appointed Receiver need not convey any further land in favour of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm over and above the land sold through the sale deed dated 07.02.1983, measuring 38.70 Acres and the said land is now identified through the survey report submitted by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai and this Court further granted liberty to M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm to evict the encroachers by following due process of law in respect of the portion of the land marked as “B” in the map annexed along with the survey report, no further consideration is required and the orders passed by this Court in the civil revision petition as well as in the interlocutory application by the Trial Court became unnecessary. Accordingly, the order dated 13.09.2007, passed in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.740 of 2006, is set aside and consequently, C.R.P. 66/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 (NPD) (MD) No.740 of 2006 as well as Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.48 of 2007 stand allowed.
66. W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013:
The writ petition is filed by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm to forbear the first respondent / Sub Registrar Joint-II, Karaikudi, from registering any document presented by anybody other than the second respondent / Receiver in respect of 3.27 Acres, comprised in old Survey No.9/6A2A1A, new Survey No.191/2A1 of Sekkalakottai Village, Sankarapuram Panchayat, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
67. In view of the fact that the entire land was already handed over to M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm pursuant to the sale deed dated 07.02.1983, measuring 38.70 Acres and now the said land is re-measured and identified as per the survey report of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, it is made clear that M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm is the absolute owner of the land measuring 38.70 Acres, which was sold through the sale deed, dated 07.02.1983 and earmarked in the map filed along with the survey report of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, 67/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 Sivagangai District, dated 29.07.2019. In respect of the said portion of the land, earmarked in the map with reference to the Old Survey Nos.9/1A1(Part), 1B(Part), 6A2A1B1 (Part), new survey Nos.9/1B1(Part), 1B2(Part), 172 to 181, 199 to 202, 204, 207 to 2015, the Sub Registrar Joint-II is restrained from registering any document presented by anybody other than M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm.
68. Accordingly, the relief sought for in W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 is granted with reference to the property mentioned in the schedule to the sale deed, dated 07.02.1983, which is now identified through the survey report submitted by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, on 29.07.2019. As far as the the claim of the writ petitioner M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm in respect of 3.27 Acres comprised in old Survey Nos.9/6A2A1A, new Survey Nos.191/2A1 of Sekkalakottai Village, Sankarapuram Panchayat, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, is concerned, the same stands rejected.
69. Accordingly, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.
68/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013
70. Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013:
The contempt petition is filed by M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm to punish the respondents for violating the interim orders passed by this Court on 22.06.2011, in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1259 of 2009.
71. In view of the dismissal of C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1259 of 2009, Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 stands closed.
72. The copy of the letter sent by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai District, vide proceedings in e.f.M1/2955/2019, dated 22.07.2019, addressed to the District Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District; Memo in e.f.M1/2955/2019, dated 23.07.2019; letter addressed to the Director of Survey and Land Records, Chepauk, Chennai-5, vide proceedings in e.f.M1/2955/2019, dated 23.07.2019; letter addressed by Mr.R.Selvaraj, Director of Survey and Land Records, Chepauk, Chennai-5, to the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai, vide proceedings in e.f.r/11/9988/2019, dated 24.07.2019, list of expenditures 69/72 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 spent for the staff, who accompanied for the measurement work; report of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai, vide proceedings in e.f.M1/2955/2019, dated 29.07.2019 as well as the Map prepared by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sivagangai, are directed to be kept as part and parcel of the case bundles on hand.
73. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.08.2019 (2/2) Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No krk Note to Office:
Keep the copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph No.72 as part and parcel of the case bundles on hand.70/72
http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 To:
1.The Sub Judge, Devakottai.
2.The Sub Registrar Joint II, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
3.Athmanathan, Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
4.Tamilarasi, Sub Registrar Joint II, Senjai, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.71/72
http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.278 of 2006, 1259 of 2009, Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.7 of 2006, 39, 40 & 48 of 2007, W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 & Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
krk C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007 & 1 of 2009 and C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1259 of 2009 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 & 3 of 2009 & 1 of 2011 and Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.7 of 2006 in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1230 of 2002 and Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos.39 & 40 of 2007 in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.278 of 2006 and Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.48 of 2007 in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.740 of 2006 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007 and W.P.(MD) No.10716 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2013, 1 & 2 of 2014 and Cont.P.(MD) No.897 of 2013 in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1259 of 2009 09.08.2019 (2/2) 72/72 http://www.judis.nic.in