Madras High Court
V.Boovaraghamoorthy vs The District Revenue Officer on 24 October, 2013
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.10.2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.15885 of 2013
V.Boovaraghamoorthy .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The District Revenue Officer
Villupuram District, Villupuram
2. Kannappa Chettiar .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 05.06.2013 in Na.Ka.No.A2/18838/12 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Silambanan
Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Bharathi Raja
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Vijayakumar
Additional Government Pleader for R1
Mr.C.Prakasam for R2
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Mr.V.Boovaraghamoorthy challenging the impugned notice dated 5.6.2013 issued in Na.Ka.No.A2/18838/12 by the first respondent-District Revenue Officer, Villupuram inter alia, among other grounds, that the suit property covered in S.Nos.21/1 and 21/2, having an extent of 1.07 acres in Sakkarapuram Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District, after being sold in the public auction sale conducted on 23.12.87 by the learned District Munsif, Gingee in E.P.No.423 of 1984 in favour of the petitioner's father Mr.Venkatasubba Reddiar and after the issuance of the sale certificate in his favour, the said property became the property of the petitioner's father, as he was the successful bidder, however, subsequently, when the second respondent filed a petition in E.A.No.332 of 1988 in E.P.No.423 of 1984 to set aside the auction sale conducted in favour of the petitioner's father, the said petition also came to be dismissed by order dated 18.12.90 and thereupon, as mentioned above, the auction sale was also confirmed and the sale certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner's father and finally the same was also registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Gingee in Document Ledger No.14 of 1992 on 29.1.92. Even as against the dismissal of E.A.No.332 of 1988, when the second respondent again filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.21 of 1992 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, the same also was dismissed on 18.8.95 and thereafter, no further appeal was filed, as a result, the entire matter became final and concluded. Thereafter, the petitioner's father took all steps to complete the mutation of the revenue records in his favour and finally the name of the petitioner's father was also entered in all the revenue records like patta, chitta, adangal and he had been paying the property tax to the said property. While so, it was pleaded, the second respondent has no basis to file any petition under the Right to Information Act for impractical and indiscriminate demands for disclosure of sundry information.
2. Adding further, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the second respondent, who had borrowed loan from one Govinda Reddiar of Pondicherry, became a defaulter and finally when the said Govinda Reddiar filed a suit for recovery in O.S.No.393 of 1970 before the District Munsif Court, Pondicherry, the same was also decreed as prayed for. Since the second respondent failed to satisfy the decree passed in O.S.No.393 of 1970, for execution of the decree, when E.P.No.423 of 1984 was filed, the property in question, originally belonging to the second respondent, was sold in the public auction in the year 1987, in which the petitioner's father Mr.Venkatasubba Reddiar became the successful bidder and, as mentioned above, the sale certificate was also issued in his favour and thereafter patta, chitta and adangal were also issued, as a result, the petitioner's father has become the legal owner.
3. Further, in the year 2011, the petitioner's father settled the above said property in favour of the petitioner by a registered settlement deed dated 19.12.2011 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Gingee and by virtue of the settlement deed, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Again, one another mutation of the revenue records had taken place in favour of the petitioner and all the patta, chitta and adangal were transferred in his name from that of his father. Therefore, the second respondent ought not to have filed any application under the Right to Information Act before the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar/Public Information Officer seeking certain information with regard to the property when he had lost the said property in the public auction held on 23.12.87, in which the petitioner's father became the successful bidder and subsequently the petitioner also became its owner. Although the application filed by the second respondent was properly considered by the Public Information Officer by furnishing the information sought for by him, aggrieved by the information given by the Public Information Officer, the second respondent again filed an appeal before the first respondent herein, who has also disposed off the said appeal. Even as against that, the second respondent filed second appeals before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission in Case Nos.49745/Visaranai/A/2012 and 22371/VisaranaiA/2012. When the notices were issued, the petitioner and his father had appeared for an enquiry on 13.5.2013 afternoon and also submitted all the relevant documents to establish the title and possession of the property. That apart, the first respondent has also filed a report before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission on 21.5.2013. In the said report, although the first respondent stated that the civil suits are pending and the name transfer can be done only after disposal of the civil cases, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, without knowing the fact that the issue is seized by the civil court, wrongly issued notices calling for a meeting of the District Revenue Officer, the Tahsildar, the Deputy Tahsildar, the land Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer on 24.7.2013. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent has issued the impugned notice informing the petitioner that he is going to take up the inspection and measurement of the suit property, even though no order was passed by the Information Commission to that effect. The said action initiated by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and the notice issued by the first respondent calling for the presence of the petitioner for the inspection and measurement of the suit property is totally uncalled for. The reason being that when the suit property covered in S.Nos.21/1 and 21/2 to an extent of 1.07 acres, originally belonging to the second respondent, was already sold in the public auction in the year 1987 in favour of the petitioner's father and that the petitioner had become the owner of the property subsequently, the Information Commission ought not to have entertained the appeal mechanically without application of mind, as there is no transparency or accountability involved, more so, the first respondent also should not have issued the present impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to be present for inspection and measurement of the suit property, as such action initiated by the first respondent to comply with the order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission on 21.5.2013 is running contrary to the settled judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.393 of 1970 by the learned District Munsif, Pondicherry dated 11.9.70; one another order passed in E.P.No.423 of 1984 dated 23.12.87; the third order passed in E.A.No.332 of 1988 dated 18.12.90; the fourth order passed in C.M.A.No.21 of 1992 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam dated 18.8.85 and the fifth judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.44 of 1991 by the learned District Munsif, Gingee dated 14.10.2011. In view of the above, the impugned notice issued by the first respondent is liable to be set aside by allowing the writ petition.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, in support of the impugned notice, submitted that the land comprised in S.No.21/1 having an extent of 0.75 cents and in S.No.21/2 having an extent of 0.32 cents situated at Sakkarapuram Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District originally belonged to the second respondent. However, when the second respondent borrowed loan from one Mr.Govinda Reddiar of Pondicherry, on his failure to repay the same, the said Mr.Govinda Reddiar filed a suit for recovery in O.S.No.393 of 1970 on the file of District Munsif Court, Pondicherry and the same was also decreed in favour of Mr.Govinda Reddiar. Subsequently, when the second respondent failed to satisfy the decree passed in O.S.No.393 of 1970, resultantly, execution petition was filed in E.P.No.423 of 1984, as a result, the property mentioned above belonging to the second respondent was attached and sold in the public auction, in which the petitioner's father Mr.Venkatasubba Reddiar participated as a bidder and subsequently he was declared as the successful bidder and the sale certificate was also issued in his favour and the same was registered before the Sub Registrar, Gingee on 29.1.92. Aggrieved by the same, E.A.No.332 of 1988 was filed by the second respondent, which also came to be dismissed on 18.12.90. Thereafter, C.M.A.No.21 of 1992 was filed before the Sub Court, Tindivanam and the said appeal was also dismissed on 18.8.95. Thereafter, no appeal was filed. Subsequently, mutation of the revenue records like patta, chitta, adangal was done in the name of the petitioner's father and thereafter the petitioner's father also settled the above said property by way of a registered settlement deed dated 19.12.2011 on the file of Sub Registrar, Gingee in favour of the petitioner. In fact, when the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, once again the revenue records like patta, chitta and adangal were also transferred in his name. While so, the second respondent filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the Public Information Officer seeking certain information. Although the Public Information Officer furnished the information, not satisfied with that, the second respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent, who also disposed off the same. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent again filed a second appeal before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission in Case Nos. 49745/Visaranai/A/2012 and 22371/Visaranai/A/2012. After receiving notice from the Information Commission, the first respondent called upon the petitioner and his father for an enquiry in respect of the inspection and measurement of the property. Therefore, the notice issued by the first respondent, which is impugned herein, should not be interfered with, as the first respondent is going to only inspect the property and measure the same.
5. The second respondent has also filed a counter affidavit through the vacate stay petition. Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that even though the public auction was held for selling the second respondent's property, the auction purchaser-Mr.Venkatasubba Reddiar did not take possession of the property and no sale certificate was also issued, as a result, the second respondent's name did find a place in the encumbrance certificate till the year 2010. Suppressing all these facts, patta, chitta and adangal were transferred in the name of the petitioner. Since the Tahsildar had issued patta in favour of the petitioner on 21.10.2011, the second respondent approached the Tahsildar on 16.2.2012 for cancelling the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. But the Tahsildar, on 22.2.2012, informed the second respondent that he should prefer an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Only on the said advice, the second respondent preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 5.3.2012 setting out the entire facts that the second respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the property, even though the public auction was held as mentioned above. Accepting the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer remitted the matter to the Tahsildar to take action as per Sections 10 to 12 of the Patta Passbook Act, 1983 read with Rule 14 of the Patta Passbook Rules, 1987. Unfortunately, the Tahsildar did not pass any orders, as a result, the second respondent approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, but no order has been passed in his appeal, which compelled the son of the second respondent to file W.P.No.16195 of 2012 for early disposal of the appeal. Accepting the limited prayer made by the second respondent's son, this Court, by order dated 7.11.2012, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeal within twelve weeks. Finally, by virtue of the order passed by this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer disposed off the said appeal stating that he cannot decide the matter since the suit is pending before the civil Court. Under these circumstances, the second respondent also filed an application under the Right to Information Act, but no specific information was given to him. Therefore, the second respondent approached the Commissioner of Right to Information Act. Accepting the second respondent's application, the Commissioner directed the District Revenue Officer to furnish the entire information to the second respondent. Only in this connection, the District Revenue Officer issued the impugned notice dated 5.6.2013 informing the petitioner and the second respondent that he is going to inspect the land in person and has asked for production of the entire records. Challenging the said notice, the writ petition has been filed. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the notice issued by the first respondent is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Court is fully unable to agree with any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent. The reason is very simple. Firstly, the entire issue is revolving around the land covered in S.Nos.21/1 and 21/2 measuring an extent of 0.75 cents and 0.32 cents respectively situate at Sakkarapuram village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. Although this property originally belonged to the second respondent, when he borrowed loan from one Mr.Govinda Reddiar of Pondicherry, the second respondent failed to repay the same, as a result, the said Mr.Govinda Reddiar filed a civil suit in O.S.No.393 of 1970 on the file of District Munsif Court, Pondicherry. The said suit was decreed in favour of the said Mr.Govinda Reddiar as prayed for. Even thereafter, the second respondent failed to satisfy the decree passed in O.S.No.373 of 1970, which resulted in filing of E.P.No.423 of 1984 before the District Munsif Court, Gingee. In the said proceedings, the property of the second respondent was attached and subsequently sold in the public auction, in which the petitioner's father Mr.Venkatasubba Reddiar participated and he was declared as the successful bidder. Challenging the same, the second respondent filed a petition in E.A.No.332 of 1988 in E.P.No.423 of 1984 to set aside the auction sale held in favour of the petitioner's father. But the said petition was dismissed by the District Munsif Court, Gingee by its order dated 18.12.90, ultimately, the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was also issued in his favour and the same was registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Gingee in Document Ledger No.14 of 1992 on 29.1.92. Thereafter, the petitioner's father took possession of the property in question.
7. The second respondent again, aggrieved by the order passed in E.A.No.332 of 1988, filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.21 of 1992 before the Sub Court, Tindivanam unsuccessfully, as the same came to be dismissed on 18.8.95, which also became final and concluded. Only thereafter, mutation of the revenue records took place, in which the name of the petitioner's father was entered in all the revenue records like patta, chitta and adangal. After sometime, the petitioner's father also settled the said property by a registered settlement deed dated 19.12.2011 bearing Document No.3348 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Gingee. In view of that, the petitioner has taken possession and is in enjoyment of the same. Once again the revenue records like patta, chitta and adangal were also transferred in his name. At that stage, the second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.33 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gingee seeking injunction restraining the petitioner and his father from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property and the said suit is pending without any interim order against anyone. Aggrieved by the issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner, the second respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tindivanam and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tindivanam also, by order dated 4.3.2013, has made it clear that the patta issued in favour of the petitioner cannot be cancelled, since he is in possession of the property covered in S.Nos.21/1 and 21/2 of Sakkarapuram village, Gingee Taluk lawfully. As against the said order, the second respondent has filed a revision before the first respondent and the same is pending.
8. Without stopping there, relently, the second respondent once again filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar/Public Information Officer seeking certain information with regard to the property, which was purchased by the petitioner's father in the public auction conducted in the year 1987. Although the Public Information Officer furnished certain information, on the ground that he had difficulty to get any useful information, the second respondent wrongly approached the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission by way of second appeal in Case Nos. 49745/Visaranai/A/2012 and 22371/Visaranai/A/2012. Overlooking all these factual and legal proceedings decided in favour of the petitioner and forgetting that the suit property covered in S.Nos.21/1 and 21/2 had been sold in the public auction in favour of the petitioner's father on 23.12.87, 25 years ago, and the challenges made by the second respondent also came to be negatived in E.P.No.423 of 1984, E.A.No.332 of 1988, C.M.A.No.21 of 1992 and O.S.No.44 of 1991, in my considered view, the second appeal filed by the second respondent before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission should not have been entertained, as the second respondent had lost his property in E.P.No.423 of 1984 in O.S.No.393 of 1970 on 23.12.87. In any event, when the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission has issued notice to the first respondent, in order to submit a report to the State Information Commission, the first respondent has issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner and his father as well the second respondent to appear for the enquiry in order to inspect and survey the land covered in S.Nos.21/1 and 21/2 situate at Sakkarapuram village.
9. As I have highlighted above, when the civil suit filed against the second respondent was decided against him by a judgement and decree dated 11.9.70 and subsequently the petition filed by the second respondent in E.A.No.332 of 1988 in E.P.No.423 of 1984 was also dismissed by order dated 18.12.90 against the second respondent and his further appeal in C.M.A.No.21 of 1992 before the Sub Court, Tindivanam was also dismissed on 18.8.95, the issue once and for all became final and concluded, thereafter, the second respondent ought not to have moved appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer or before the Public Information Officer followed by the second appeal before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, for the simple reason that he has no locus standi to maintain any petition when all the above mentioned civil proceedings had ended against him finally by order dated 18.8.95 in C.M.A.No.21 of 1992.
10. In this context, I wish to add that a party who has repeatedly lost his case before the competent civil Court, after allowing the matter to become final and concluded, is once and for all not entitled to raise the very same subject matter before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, for, in the case on hand, apparently and admittedly, the second respondent became the judgment-debtor in O.S.No.373 of 1970 and finally, his property was also sold in the public auction conducted on 23.12.87. Subsequently, three more proceedings viz., E.A.No.332 of 1988 in E.P.No.423 of 1984, C.M.A.No.21 of 1992 and O.S.No.44 of 1991 were also decided against him. Therefore, the property of the second respondent having been sold in the public auction in favour of the petitioner's father in the year 1987, namely, 25 years ago, cannot be allowed to say that he has got any more interest in the property, therefore, he has no authority or grievance to seek any information relating to somebody's property with regard to patta particulars, sadly and unfortunately, this has not been properly considered by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission before issuing the notice. If this Court fails to interfere with the notice, this may lead to one another vexatious round of litigation and there would not be any end. Further, the power conferred under the Right to Information Act shall not be to unsettle the disputes decided by the competent civil Court.
11. The second respondent might have sought certain information relating to the property covered in S.Nos.21/1 and 21/2 of Sakkarapuram Village, but he has no legal right whatsoever on the property sold away in a public auction 25 years ago. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the Right to Information Act for disclosure of all and sundry information which is unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of pubic authorities would be counter-productive, as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. Heavily coming down against this practice, particularly against the persons who are making impractical demands under the Right to Information Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 497, has held as follows:-
"67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace; tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
12. As a matter of fact, the application filed by the second respondent seeking information in respect of the property in S.Nos.21/1 and 21/2 to an extent of 1.07 acres that were sold in the year 1987, is not liable to be entertained by virtue of Section 8(1)(a) & (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 also. For proper appreciation, Section 8(1)(a) & (b) of the Right to Information Act shall be extracted as follows:-
"8.Exemption from disclosure of information.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--
(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any Court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of Court;
...."
13. A close reading of Section 8(1)(a) of the Act unambiguously and explicitly speaks that there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information, the disclosure of which would lead to incitement of an offence. In my view, as repeatedly highlighted above, when the petitioner became the absolute owner of the property covered in S.Nos.21/1 and 21/2 that was purchased in a Court held public auction on 23.12.87 and finally when the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.393 of 1970 also became final and concluded against the second respondent and his family, the further attempt on the part of the second respondent to invoke the provisions of the Right to Information Act indiscriminately will lead to incitement of an offence between the parties for making impractical demands for disclosure of sundry information that is nowhere going to be useful to the second respondent's family, could have been rejected by the authority. Further, a perusal of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act also clearly shows that there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information, the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of Court. Again, in the present case, as I mentioned here-in-above, when the second respondent's property was sold in a public auction 25 years ago, namely, on 23.12.87 through Court auction, without filing any appeal against that order, he has lost his property. Therefore, he has no locus standi to maintain any application even under the Right to Information Act for making impractical demands, as any inadvertent and slightest negligence on the part of the Information Officer in providing wrong information to the second respondent by entertaining his application would surely constitute contempt of Court, since the property in S.Nos.21/1 and 21/2 had already become the property of the petitioner's father 25 years ago and thereafter to the petitioner. As the State Information Commission, by a routine exercise, without even making itself prima facie satisfied with the object of the obligation vis-a-vis the Act, directed issuance of notice, the same has resulted in serious consequences. Be that as it may, when the second respondent, being fully aware of all these facts, has completely misled and concealed all these facts while making the application under the Right to Information Act, this Court is left with no other option except to reprimand his conduct.
14. In view of the above, when the property of the second respondent was sold in the public auction held by a competent civil Court as early as in the year 1987 (25 years ago), seeking information in the year 2012 in respect of patta of the said property is absolutely unfair and unjustified. When the second respondent is no longer the owner of the property and he has lost his property in the Court held public auction, saying less against the second respondent is better for him. As the second respondent has repeatedly suppressed and misled the District Revenue Officer and also the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission for issuing notice against the petitioner, this Court, taking a serious note of his bad conduct in filing petitions one after another without there being any legal basis and wasting the precious time of the various forums viz., the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, the District Revenue Officers and also the precious time of this Court, is inclined to impose exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) on him for having grossly misused the process of the Court and the process of the law.
15. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notice is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. The costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) shall be paid to the petitioner by the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2013 are closed. No costs.
Index : yes 24.10.2013
Internet: yes
Issue copy on 13.11.2013
ss
To
1. The District Revenue Officer
Villupuram District
Villupuram
T.RAJA, J.
ss
W.P.No.15885 of 2013
24.10.2013