Madras High Court
Mrs.Usha Ravi Subramaniam vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2012
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.11.2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.28446 of 2004 &
M.P.Nos.34546 and 34547 of 2004
Mrs.Usha Ravi Subramaniam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.
by District Collector,
M.Singaravelar Maaligai,
V Floor, Chennai-5.
2.Tahsildar,
Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk,
Spur Tank Road,
Chennai-31.
3.Mr.D.Dananjayan
4.Dr.R.Amuthan ... Respondents
(R-4 impleaded as per order dated
20.11.2012 in M.P.No.312 of 2012 in
W.P.No.28446 of 2004)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order in J3/68817/2001, dated 01.06.2004 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from in any manner disturbing the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house site Plot No.8, 1200 sq.ft, comprised in Old.S.No.20/2A, present S.No.20/6, Koyambedu Village.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.B.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.R.Lakshmi Narayanan
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R-1 and R-2
Mr.S.Subbiah for R-4
- - -
O R D E R
The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner submits that she has purchased a house site comprised in old Survey No.20/2A, present Survey No.20/6 Koyambedu Village, to an extent of 1,200 sq.ft, on 03.11.1993, after paying sale consideration, from the third respondent herein viz., Dananjayan. Subsequently, she had obtained patta bearing No.1581 issued by the second respondent herein. The petitioner further stated that from date of purchase, she is in physical possession and enjoying the said land. She also sent a representation to the Revenue Authorities to make appropriate entries in the revenue records. Under these circumstances, the first respondent herein /the District Collector issued impugned order dated 01.06.2004. The operative portion of the impugned order is as follows:-
".... based on the report of the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, all transfer registry effected in respect of S.No.20/2 are hereby ordered to be cancelled and the original entry as "Grama Mirasudargal" Inam Nanjai in respect of old S.No.20/2A and 20/2C leaving 20/2B as Highways Department is ordered to be restored. The Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk requested to carry out necessary changes in the Taluk accounts/registers and report compliance."
2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner argued that the impugned order has not been served on the writ petitioner since she is the owner of a portion of the property comprised in Survey No.20/2A, Koyambedu Village, an extent of 1,200 sq.ft. The said property has been purchased on 03.11.1993 and from the date of purchase, she is in possession and enjoying the property, therefore, the impugned order is not fit to be proceeded further over the petitioner's property.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader argued that as per the Government records and connected revenue records, the property has been classified as "Grama Mirasudargal" and therefore, the property does not belong to the writ petitioner or any other third party or private individual.
4. Mr.Subbiah, learned counsel has filed petition to implead one Dr.R.Amuthan as the fourth respondent in the above writ petition stating that he is also occupying a portion of the said land to an extent of 18 cents, corresponding to the Survey No.20/2 out of 1 acre and 32 cents under a sale deed dated 29.12.1983, registered as document No.4341 of 1983, on the file of Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar.
5. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsels for all their respective parties, and on perusing the impugned order of the first respondent, this Court is of the view that the second respondent had issued a patta in favour of the writ petitioner. Therefore a prior notice has to be given to the writ petitioner as well as the proposed party, viz., R.Amuthan, who is also claiming ownership right over a portion of the said property which had been mentioned in the sale deed, registered in the year 1983, on the file of Sub Registrar. Further, the first respondent has passed the impugned order, which is a final order, without serving prior notice to the occupants and without any enquiry made with them. Therefore, sufficient opportunities shall be provided to the parties concerned. Hence, the current impugned order issued by the first respondent is not fit to be proceeded further with. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to issue a preliminary notice to the occupants of the concerned landed property within two months from the date of receipt of this notice and decide the issue on merits without being influenced by the discussions of this Court.
6. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed with the above observation. Consequently, the impugned order in J3/68817/2001, dated 01.06.2004 on the file of the first respondent / the District Collector, Chennai is quashed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Accordingly ordered.
20.11.2012 Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. r n s Note:Issue order copy on 19.08.2013. C.S.KARNAN, J. r n s To 1. The District Collector, M.Singaravelar Maaligai, V Floor, Chennai-5. 2.Tahsildar, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, Spur Tank Road, Chennai-31. W.P.No.28446 of 2004 & M.P.Nos.34546 and 34547 of 2004 20.11.2012