Madras High Court
Dr.Usha Vishwanath vs Pee And Dee Lands Holdings Private ... on 8 August, 2017
Author: Nooty.Ramamohana Rao
Bench: Nooty.Ramamohana Rao, M.Dhandapani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.08.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.A.Nos.1625 and 1626/2016 and 915/2017
and
C.M.P.Nos.20211/2016, 2892/2017,20288/16 and 12732 of 2017
W.A.No.1625/2016 :
Dr.Usha Vishwanath ... Appellant
Versus
1. Pee and Dee Lands Holdings Private Limited
rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
N.Palaniswamy, No.82, Cathedral Road,
Gopalapuram, Madras-86.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Chennai.
3. The Tahsildar,
Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk.
4. Ragini Rajkumar
5. Nandakumar
6. Marikuthu
7. Gandhi
8. Arjunan ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.2680 of 2013 by a Single Judge of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal
For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari for R1
Mr.P.lS.Sivashanmugasundaram,
Spl.Govt. Pleader for R2 and R3
Mr.Ravi Paul for
B.Raj Kumar Ashok Singh for R4
Mr.Abdul Majeeth for
Mr.E.Narayanan for R5 to R8
****
W.A.No.1626/2016 :
Ragini Rajkumar ... Appellant
Versus
1. Pee and Dee Lands Holdings Private Limited
rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
N.Palaniswamy, No.82, Cathedral Road,
Gopalapuram, Madras-86.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Chennai.
3. The Tahsildar,
Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk.
4. M.Nandakumar
5. Marikuthu
6. Gandhi
7. Arjunan
8. Dr.Usha Viswanathan ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.2680 of 2013 by a Single Judge of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.Ravi Paul
for M/s.B.Rajkumar Ashok Singh
For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari for R1
Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram,
Spl.Govt. Pleader for R2 and R3
Mr.Abdul Majeeth for
Mr.E.Narayanan for R4 to R7
Mr.S.R.Raghunathan for R8
****
W.A.No.915/2017 :
1. Nandakumar
2. Marikuthu
3. Gandhi
4. Arjunan ... Appellants
Versus
1. Pee and Dee Lands Holdings Private Limited
rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
N.Palaniswamy, No.82, Cathedral Road,
Gopalapuram, Madras-86.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Chennai.
3. The Tahsildar,
Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk.
4. Ragini Rajkumar
5. Dr.Usha Viswanath ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.2680 of 2013 by a Single Judge of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.Abdul Majeeth for
Mr.E.Narayanan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari for R1
Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram,
Spl.Govt. Pleader for R2 and R3
Mr.Ravi Paul for
Mr.B.Raj Kumar Ashok Singh for R4
Mr.S.R.Rajagopal for R5
****
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.,) Since all the three Writ Appeals are directed against the judgment and order rendered by our learned Brother Justice M.SATHYANARAYANA, on 28th September, 2016 in W.P.No.2680/2013, all these three Writ Appeals were heard together by us. Hence, all the three Writ Appeals stand disposed of by this Common Judgment.
2. The W.A.No.1625/2016 is preferred by Dr.Usha Viswanathan, while W.A.No.1626/2016 is preferred by Ragini Rajkumar. Both the appellants are sisters and are residents of New Delhi. While W.A.915/2017 has been preferred by Nandakumar S/o.Balaji and three others. Mrs.Ragini was impleaded as 3rd respondent to the Writ Petition while Dr.Usha is impleaded as 8th respondent and the appellants in W.A.No.915/2017 are impleaded as respondents 4 and 7 to the writ petition instituted by the 1st respondent company herein.
3. The 1st respondent company has purchased the lands situated at 71/1, L.B.Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai, through a Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.10756/2011 executed by 64 vendors on 07.10.2011. It is their claim that a land of a total extent of 4 acres 52 cents described in Schedule ''A'' of the Sale Deed, lying in Old Survey No.68/1 to the extent of 0.38 acres, in Survey No.68/2 to the extent of 0.41 acres, in Survey No.68/3 to an extent of 1 acre 49 cents and in Survey No.68/4 of an extent of 0.43 acres, in Survey No.69/1 to an extent of 1.81 acres, lying in Block No.30, T.S.No.13 comprised of No.140, Thiruvanmiyur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District and an old dilapidated building bearing Corporation Door No.71/1 of L.B. Road of Thiruvanmiyur Village, Chennai have been purchased for a valuable consideration of Rs.32 Crores. Based upon the registered Sale Deed, the 1st respondent company appears to have approached the Tahsildar of Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk for grant of patta on 14.12.2011. Entertaining the said request, the Tahsildar appears to have granted a patta in favour of the 1st respondent company on 13.01.2012. Challenging the correctness of the order granting patta in favour of the 1st respondent, the matter was carried in appeal initially by Dr.Usha and Ragini and the other appellants have followed them later on.
4. The District Revenue Officer, passed orders on 07.01.2013 cancelling the patta issued by the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk on 13.01.2012 in favour of the 1st respondent company and restored the original revenue entry and also directed the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk to carry out the changes accordingly. It is, against this order dated 07.01.2013, the 1st respondent company has filed W.P.No.2680/2013. That is how, the learned Single Judge, had occasion to consider the entire issue by his judgment dated 28th September, 2016. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned order dated 07.01.2013 passed by the District Revenue Officer and restored the patta granted in favour of the 1st respondent-Writ Petitioner by the Tahsildar on 13.01.2012. At the same time, the learned Single Judge has preserved liberty to the private respondents to approach the competent civil forum in the writ petition to work out their remedy in accordance with law. It is, this order, which is under challenge before us in these appeals.
5. Heard Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in W.A.No.1625/2016 and Mr.Ravi Paul, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in W.A.No.1626/2016 and Mr.Abdul Majeeth, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in W.A.No.915/2017. Sri V.Raghavachari, the learned Counsel appears for the 1st respondent/Writ Petitioner. The Special Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the official respondents.
6. Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1625/2016 would contend that the Revenue Record maintained over a long period of time has been reflecting the names of Usha and Ragini in the relevant column as the owners of the land-in-dispute. Suddenly, the writ petitioner company, the 1st respondent herein has sought for grant of patta in their favour and they submitted such an application on 14th December, 2011 and without putting both Usha and Ragini on notice and without providing them an opportunity to raise their objection, the Tahsildar proceeded one sided and finalised the action in quick time by granting patta in favour of the Writ Petitioner company on 13.01.2012. Stunned by this development, the appellants have carried the matter in appeal before the District Revenue Officer. The District Revenue Officer has followed faithfully the principles of natural justice and put the 1st respondent/writ petitioner company on notice and provided them an opportunity to put forth their defence and after considering the rival contentions and the claims, based on the material available on record, has passed a detailed order assigning reasons as to why the order of Tahsildar on 13.01.2012 granting patta in favour of the writ petitioner company is not sustainable and hence for valid reasons has set aside the same. The District Revenue Officer has very rightly restored the entries existing in the Revenue Records prior to 13.01.2012.
7. According to Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1625/2016, this court has not applied the same standard, while judging the rival claims of the parties, even after noticing the fact that Tahsildar has not provided any opportunity whatsoever to the appellants before ordering that the entries in the revenue record to be modified by granting of patta in favour of the writ petitioner company on 13.01.2012, has set aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, in appeal there against, in spite of the District Revenue Officer following the principles of natural justice and also the various principles enunciated by this Court with regard to similar nature of disputes. It is, therefore, contended that what is good for the writ petitioner/1st respondent must also hold good for the appellants. There cannot be two different yardsticks to judge the claim of both the parties. However, it is the contention of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner that it has sought for grant of patta in favour of them based upon the sale deed executed on 07.10.2011. In that process, the entries in the revenue record are impeached by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. In spite of noticing the names of Usha and Ragini found in the relevant column of the Revenue Record indicating them as land holders, the Tahshildar has not followed the basic and elementary principle of putting them on notice. It is also urged that Usha and Ragini are not one of the 64 vendors of the writ petitioner company and hence, a new claim of ownership has surfaced for the first time, when the writ petitioner made a claim for grant of patta on 14th December, 2011 and all of a sudden and without conducting much enquiry into the matter, the Tahsildar granted patta on 13.01.2012 in favour of the Writ Petitioner company.
8. Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, the learned Counsel would further urge that it is the appellants, who have now been forced to seek an appropriate remedy in a Civil Court, one of the most expensive affairs to be undertaken. Though the appellants have not parted with their title to the land-in-question in any manner recognized by law, the true owners of the land are now asked to establish their title instead of directing the person/company which is seeking to disturb the existing title and assert or lay a parallel claim of title. It is, therefore, the normal rule that the person, who is seeking to impeach the title of the existing owner, who should approach the civil court and secure an appropriate declaration of title in the presence of appropriate opposite parties. Instead, the learned Single Judge has referred the original owners to defend their title by approaching the civil court even though their title is not sought to be impeached in accordance with law.
9. Mr.Rajagopal, the learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that on 07.01.1947, one P.S.Kesava Naicker, Son of Sadagopa Naicker and his two minor sons, namely, Rajendran and Chanrdrasekaran, sold certain parcels of land to Mr.A.R.Rangachariyar, son of Ayyangar Ramayya. This Mr.A.R.Rangachariyar is the grand father of both Dr.Usha and Ragini. But, however, he has executed a Registered Will and the necessary probate proceedings in respect thereof have been taken up by instituting O.P.No.310/1954 on the Original Testamentary jurisdiction of this High Court by Mr.K.A.Ramachar and Mr.A.R.Shahasranam, the executors of the Will. In those probate proceedings, Application No.1330/1957 has been taken out by the executors seeking permission of the court to sell the properties of the deceased A.R.Rangachari to the persons and for the price mentioned in the schedule appended thereto. That application has been dealt with by this Court on 17.07.1957 and also set for hearing on 18.07.1957 and appropriate orders were passed on 26.07.1957 granting the permission sought for by the executors of the deceased testator A.R.Rangachari.
10. Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1625/2016 would specifically point out that the lands in Thiruvanmiyur comprising of 14 items measuring on the whole cawnies 3-6-10, two items measuring cawnies 0-6-0 were sold for a sale consideration of Rs.18,900/- payable by Smt.Krupabai, who is the wife of K.A.Ramachar, one of the executors of the Will. In the application No.1330/1957, the Executors of the Will have clearly brought out that one of the properties of the testator was sold and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was realised, but, however, the said sum was not sufficient to liquidate all the debts incurred by the testator Mr.A.R.Rangachari. In those circumstances, the executors, who included K.A.Ramachar, has set out that the intended purchasers of various other properties of the testator are all close relatives of the deceased testator Rangachari. Thus, with full knowledge, this Court allowed the properties of the deceased testator Rangachari to be purchased for the consideration shown in the statement filed by the executors, by the relatives of the testator, who also includes Smt.Krupabai. Thus, the lands in Thiruvanmiyur Village came to be purchased by Smt.Krupa Bai, wife of Sri.K.A.Ramachar, for and on behalf of her minor daughters, Usha and Ragini.
11. It is the case of the appellants in W.A.Nos.1625 and 1626/2016 that Tmt.Krupa Bai was their mother, while Sri.K.R.Ramachar, one of the executors of the Will of the testator Rangachari, was their father. Thus, by virtue of the permission granted by this Court in Probate Proceedings in O.P.No.310/1954 and Application No.1330/1957 moved therefor, necessary permission has been accorded by this Court for the sale of the properties of the Original Testator Sri.Rangachari. It is, in pursuance of the order of this Court, a Sale Deed came to be executed on 11.08.1959 by Sri.K.A.Ramachar and Sri.A.R.Sahasranam, the executors of the Will of A.R.Rangachari, in favour of R.Usha and R.Ragini, minors represented by their mother Smt.Kripa Bai, wife of K.A.Ramachar. Thus, pursuant to this sale deed bearing No.365 dated 7th August 1959, two appellants in W.A.Nos.1625 and 1626 of 2016 acquired their right, title and interest in the lands belonging to Rangachari which were sold to them through the said document. In pursuance of this acquisition, on 11.08.1959, the names of Usha and Ragini were reflected as owners in the appropriate column maintained in the revenue records ever since. For the first time, the writ petitioner company had proposed for grant of patta by altering the revenue records necessarily. That request was conceded by the Tahsildar on 13.01.2012 even without putting Dr.Usha and R.Ragini on notice.
12. Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1625/2016 would submit that Usha was born on 12.02.1948 while Ragini was born on 04.11.1951 and that was the reason why their mother Kripa Bai has acted on their behalf as the purchaser in August, 1959. He would submit that even the 1st respondent-Writ Petitioner company has recognized that the land was originally held by Usha and Ragini, but, however, the 1st respondent has asserted that Usha and Ragini said to have purchased the property in a court sale pursuant to a decree passed in O.S.No.290/1883 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee. He would further submit that the decree copy (which has been produced) in O.S.No.290/1883 is palpably a fabricated document. He would firstly contend that there is no District Munsif Court functioning at Poonamallee in or around the year 1883 for a civil suit to be instituted, on its file. Secondly, when Usha and Ragini were born after February 1948, the question of their names being reflected in a decree said to have been passed in O.S.No.290/1883 would not arise. It is further urged that it is difficult to subscribe that even in the year 1883, there could have been as many as 290 civil suits filed before the said court, even if it were conceded to be in existence and lastly, the learned Counsel would urge that the original decree or its certified copy is not traceable at all. The efforts made by the appellants by approaching the District Court at Chengleput in which court custody, the old records of Poonamallee courts are preserved have drawn a complete blank inasmuch as the court has found no such record available in its otherwise well preserved record room. It is urged, therefore, a case of making a false claim by the 1st respondent-Writ Petitioner company.
13. Mr.Ravi Paul, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1626/2016 supplementing the submissions of Mr.Rajagopal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1625/2016 would contend that it is the 1st respondent-Writ Petitioner company which has produced a photocopy of the decree in O.S.No.290 of 1883. From the photocopy of the said decree produced by the writ petitioner, one can easily make out the official seal of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. It is, therefore, for the 1st respondent-Writ Petitioner to produce the original from and out of which the said photocopy of the decree in O.S.No.290/1983 has been secured. So far, the 1st respondent-Writ Petitioner has not produced the original of the photocopy of the decree in O.S.No.290/1983 produced by the writ petitioner company. He would, therefore, contend that the writ petitioner company is not willing to produce the necessary documentary evidence in spite of its claim of title to the land, lest, the fraud and misrepresentation indulged in, would get completely exposed. Mr.Ravi Paul, the learned Senior Counsel who would also urge that the copy of the decree in O.S.No.193/1897, which is yet another document produced by the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner, appears to have suffered some interpolation with regard to the declaration of the documents said to have been filed by the plaintiff in that case. He has specifically drawn our attention to the marking of Survey Nos.68-1-4, 69/1-4 measuring to an extent of 4.52 acres in Thiruvanmiyur, in the said decree copy.
14. Mr.Ravi Paul, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would also submit that (the 1st respondent/writ petitioner has also produced a copy of a decree passed in O.S.No.193/1897 by the same District Munsif Court at Poonamallee dated 08.07.1897) from the photocopy of the said decree in O.S.No.193/1897 produced by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner company, it can be easily made out that the said photocopy is taken out of a certified copy obtained from the District and Sessions Court at Chengleput on 25th September, 1998. Even, this certified copy said to have been obtained from the District and Sessions Court, Chengleput on 25th September, 1998 has not surfaced so far and only the photocopy is being produced. The learned Counsel would also draw our attention to the ''A'' Register maintained by the State Revenue Administration for Village No.140 Thiruvanmiyur. The ''A'' Register was published by the Government on 27.01.1963. In the said Register, in Column 11, the names of the appellants figure as though patta was standing in their names for the relevant parcels of land. Therefore, leaving aside all other disputes, the said revenue record published on 27.01.1963, shows that there is no doubt whatsoever about the right, title and interest of the appellants in the land-in-question. This factum of the names of the appellants figuring in the revenue record has been consistently brought out by the Public Administration of the State. It was further urged that when the 1st respondent-writ petitioner company has presented the sale deed said to have been executed by 64 persons in its favour for the purpose of registration, the Sub-Registrar has raised objection in writing on 10.10.2011 pointing out that in the ''A'' Register of the Thiruvanmiyur Village, when examination, the names of the owners of the land lying in Survey No.68/1 and 68/4 and 69/1 are shown as Usha and Ragini whereas for the lands in Survey No.68/2 Maruntheeswarar Swamy Temple represented by its Present Dharmakarta was shown. Similarly, for the lands in Survey No.68/3, the names of one Muniyan, Murugan, Kandan and Kanni are shown. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar requested the writ petitioner company to produce the documents or any other evidence establishing ownership in the land by the persons who have sold the land to the writ petitioner company.
15. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that instead of satisfying the Sub-Registrar concerned by producing the necessary evidence of title held by 64 vendors of the writ petitioner company, the Writ Petitioner Company moved this Court on or around 13th October, 2011 by instituting W.P.No.24022/2011 seeking Writ of Mandamus, directing the said Sub-Registrar 2nd respondent to register and release the petitioner's sale deed pending Document P.No.448/2011 dated 07.10.2011. It is further pointed out that in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition, the writ petitioner company has traced its title by pointing out that the lands purchased by them originally belonged to late Kuppusamy Naicker who has purchased the same through a Court Auction Sale on 26.08.1891 in O.S.No.290/1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamalee. It is also their case that the purchaser late Kuppusamy Naicker has not carried out mutation of his name in the revenue record. It is further asserted that upon receipt of the sale consideration, the legal heirs of the original owner Kuppusamy Naicker have executed the necessary sale deed in his favour on 7.10.2011. Thus, it is pointed out that the Writ Petitioner company has traced its title to the land as belonging to one Kuppusamy Naicker initially and through his legal heirs, they have acquired the present title on 07.10.2011. Whereas the appellants have traced their title to the land-in-question by pointing out that it is on 07.01.1947, Mr.A.R.Rangachari, son of Ayyangar Ramayya purchased the said property from Mr.P.S.Kesava Naicker and his two sons, namely, Rajendran and Chandrasekaran. It is during the Probate Proceedings of the Will of A.R.Rangachari pursuant to this Court according permission, the land was purchased by their mother on 11.08.1959. Kuppusamy Naicker and P.S.Kesava Naicker are obviously two different individuals. No record is produced vouching for the title held by Kuppusamy Naicker by the Writ Petitioner Company. It is, hence, urged that in contrast to the claim made by the writ petitioner-1st respondent company, it is the appellants, who have established their right, title and interest in the land right from 07.01.1947. This has been completely ignored by the learned Single Judge from consideration.
16. The learned Counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.915/2017 has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr.Raja Gopal and Mr.Ravi Paul. In addition, he would urge before us that the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants are in fact granted ''Tukkiri Inam'' and therefore, they have right, interest and title to the land comprised in Survey No.68/3.
17. In reply to these submissions, Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent company would urge that the land over which right, title and interest claimed by the appellants is entirely a different parcel of land. The appellants are confusing themselves with regard to the localisation of the land and instead of confining their claims to the land which they own, they are trying to interfere with the right, title and interest of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner company which has acquired the lands from the legal heirs of one Kuppusamy Naicker who purchased the land in a court auction sale long years back. The learned Counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner would urge that the failure to produce the certified copy of the decree passed by the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee in O.S.No.290/1983 or the certified copy wherefrom, the photo copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.190/1897 is taken, do not take away their right or title to the lands-in-question.
18. Dealing with the criticism of Mr.Rajagopal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1625/2016 that there is no court of District Munsif at Poonamallee, Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent would point out that the State Government and this High Court has in fact celebrated 125th year function of the building in which the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee was functioning, very recently. It is therefore, improper for one to assume that there is no court functioning at Poonamallee in the year 1883.
19. Mr.Raghavachari, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent would point out that one Mr.A.R.Rangachari is said to have purchased certain extent of land on 07.01.1947 from one P.S.Kesava Naicker and his two sons, namely, Rajendran and Chandrasekaran and page 2 of the said Sale Deed Document bearing No.20/1947 would in turn refer to a registered sale deed dated 24.04.1944 through which the said vendors P.S.Kesava Naicker and his two sons have, in turn, acquired the said land. Mr.Raghavachari, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent would point out that certain corrections are found to have been carried out in the said document No.20/1947 by hand, at Page No.1 and Page Nos.7, 8 and 9. In the particulars in Page No.8, there were two corrections carried out in hand. The corrections carried out in page No.1 of the document bearing No.20/1947 and Page No.7 have been attested by Mr.P.S.Kesava Naicker whereas one of the corrections in Page No.9 of the said document related to the extent of land which is originally typed as under ''0-1-2'' which was corrected as ''1-2-0'', has been attested by Mr.P.S.Kesava Naicker. Whereas at the top of the said page, the corrections made in hand by striking off the word ''PATTA'' and substituting it with ''PAIMASH'' has not been attested at all. It is, therefore, contended by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that the appellants are making a clandestine attempt to correlate the land purchased by Mr.A.R.Rangachari from Mr.P.S.Kesava Naiker by altering Patta Number to that of Paimash and thereafter, Paimash to the Revenue Survery Number and thereafter, to Town Survey Number. This attempt is not authenticated one at all.
20. It is further contended by Mr.Raghavachari, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that, Mr.K.A.Ramachar, who is said to be the father of Usha and Ragini, is described as son of Mr.K.J.Alagirisami, Hindu Sowrashtra, Engineer, aged about 44 years, residing at No.13, I Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai in O.P.No.310/1957. Thus, it is urged that the deceased testator Mr.K.R.Rangachari may not the grandfather of the appellants Usha and Ragini as claimed by the appellants. On the other hand, they are the children of one of the two executors of the Will of the testator Rangachari.
21. It is also further contended by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that the 14th item measuring as whole cawins 3-6-10, two items measuring cawins 0-4-4 of Saidapet Taluk of Chengalput District have been described in the schedule appended to the sale deed executed by the executors of the deceased testator Rangachari. Whereas in the registered sale deed bearing No.365/1959, survey numbers of the land have been incorporated. Similarly, with regard to the land described in Schedule ''B'' also, the survey numbers are mentioned. The description found in the registered sale deed dated 07.08.1959 reads as under :
SCHEDULE ''A'' Agricultural lands in Tiruvanmiyur Village 14 items measuring on the whole Cawnies 3-6-10; 2 items measuring Cawni 0-6-4, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District.
Survey No. Extent 117 0-1-12 119 0-1-8 120 0-1-10 121 0-2-4 122 0-1-12 125 0-0-14 124 0-1-12 126 0-3-0 136A 0-2-4 136D 0-1-8 136E 0-2-8 138 0-12-4 139(Inam) 0-3-10 128 (Inam) 1-2-0 ------- 3-6-10 ------- 499 0-5-4 500A 0-1-0 ------- 0-6-4 ------- SCHEDULE ''B''
All that piece and parcel of agricultural land together with buildings, pumpsets, trees crops and wells thereon situate in No.141, Tiruvanmiyur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District bearing the following Survey Nos. Survey No. Extent 117 0-1-12 119 0-1-8 120 0-1-10 121 0-2-4 122 0-1-12 125 0-0-14 124 0-1-12 126 0-3-0 136A 0-2-4 136D 0-1-8 136E 0-2-8 138 0-12-4 139(Inam) 0-3-10 128 (Inam) 1-2-0
-------
3-6-10
-------
He would further contend that after the survey and settlement operations undertaken pursuant to the 1923 Enactment, survey numbers have been assigned to the lands and therefore, clearly this document referred to survey numbers whereas the lands purchased by the Writ Petitioner Company are standing in survey No.68 and the sale deed dated 11.08.1959 through which the appellants in W.A.Nos.1625 and 1626/2016 are tracing their right, title and interest are altogether different lands lying in other survey numbers and those lands have nothing to do with the lands in Survey No.68.
22. Pursuing further, Mr.Ragavachari, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that the description of the lands purchased by Mr.A.R.Rangachari through Document No.20/1947 dated 07.01.1947 would make it further more clear that the lands purchased by the Writ Petitioner Company are entirely different from the lands over which the appellants in W.A.Nos.1625 and 1626/2016 had acquired right, title and interest and hence, it is highly improbable for the appellants to sustain any such contention of having valid title or interest over the lands purchased by the Writ Petitioner Company.
23. Mr. Raghavachari, the learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner would contend that the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 is only an enactment for issue of Patta Pass Book for holders of the agricultural lands and it does not confer any title at all.
24. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would urge that under Section 3 of this enactment, the Tahsildhar shall issue a patta Pass Book to every owner in respect of the lands owned by him, on an application made by him in that behalf. Sub Section 3 of Section 3 only required the Tahsildhar to publish the notice in the District Gazette and the copy of the said notice shall be displayed on the Notice Board, informing the public that Patta Pass Book is to be issued to the owners and such owners shall apply for the issuance of the Pass Book as provided for. Thus, all the owners of land are legitimately eligible to apply for and secure a Patta Pass Book. Under Section 2 (vi) and the expression owner has been defined as under:
(6) "Owner" means any person holding land in severalty or jointly or in common under a ryotwari settlement or in any way subject to the payment of revenue direct to the Government, and includes a full owner or limited owner but does not include a mortgage, lessee or a tenant:
25. Therefore, the persons holding any lands are entitled to apply for grant of patta Pass Book. It is, therefore, contended that grant of patta by the Tahsildhar on 13.01.2012 in favour of the writ petitioner Company does not amount to granting of title of the land in question in favour of the writ petitioner Company. On the other hand, at best it would recognise the possession of the land held by the Petitioner Company and nothing beyond.
26. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Tahsildhar, granting patta on 13.01.2012 in favour of the writ petitioner Company. In contrast, the District Revenue Officer in an appeal against the orders of the Tahsildhar granting patta has embarked upon an enquiry to resolve the title dispute.
27. According to Mr.Raghavachari, the learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner findings are also recorded by the District Revenue Officer with regard to which party holds better title, whereas the revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to embark upon resolution of title disputes. On the other hand, should there be a title dispute, the parties must be religated to competent civil Court and that is what precisely the learned single Judge has done in the instant case. There is nothing improper in setting aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer by the learned Single Judge, as the legal principles settled by this Court over a long period of time clearly bring out that no enquiry into the validity or lack of it behind the title setup by one or other cannot be gone into by the Revenue Court.
28. In the above background, all we need to notice is the relevant legal principle. A Division Bench of this Court in Kuppuswamy Naicker Vs. District Revenue Officer and Ors., reported in 1995 (1) MLJ 426 held that the "Revenue officers in a patta proceedings may express their views on the question of title, but such expression of opinion or decision is not conclusive and it is only intended to support their decision for granting patta. Ultimately, it is the Civil Court which has to adjudicate the question as to whether the person claiming patta is the title-holder of the land. Even if the revenue authorities decide the question of title, that will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of Civil Court, which has to decide the question without reference to the decision of the revenue authorities." This was the principle held by this Court over a long period of time.
29. In Kuppammal Versus Gattipalli Gopaul Chetti and others reported in AIR 1915 Mad. 614, a Division Bench of this Court dealt with value of a Collector's certificate in respect of immovable properties and observed that a certificate is only evidence of revneue registry and affords no title or security as to ownership .
30. The privy council in Nageshwar Baksh Singh Vs. Mt.Ganesha reported in AIR 1920 PC 46 while dealing with settlement records held that entries in those records, although important evidence of matter recorded cannot be conclusive and that facts of partition or separation of shares is not a matter dealt with in such records
31. Further, the privy council in Thakur Nirman Singh and others Vs. Thakur Lal Rudra Partab Narain Singh and others, reported in AIR 1926 PC 100 held that mutation proceedings is not a judicial proceeding and does not decide title and is no evidence of exclusion from property
32. It is appropriate to notice that in Sawarni Versus Inder Kaur and others reported in 1996 6 SCC 223, it has been held that mutation of property in the Revenue records does not create or extinguish the title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.
33. In Sankalchan Jaychandbhai Patel and others Versus Jaychandbhai Patel and others reported in 1996 6 SCC 433 it has been held that it is settled law that mutation entries are only to enable the State to collect revenues from the person in possesion and enjoyment of the property and that the right, title and interest as to the property should be established dehors the entries. Entries are only one of the modes of proof of the enjoyment of the property. Mutation entries do not create any title or interest therein.
34. In Balwant Singh and another Versus Daulat Singh reported in 1997 9 SCC 137, it has been held that mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries were relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue
35. By bearing all the above legal principles in mind, we have no hesitation to hold that Patta Pass Book granted under Section 3 of the Act does not confer any title over any land on the person who was granted the Patta Pass Book.
36.However, patta granted by the Tahsildhar is a relevant circumstantial piece of evidence, in the matter of determining the right to hold the land in question. Therefore, it has also got certain amount of significance for regulating the affairs with regard to the land held/owned by him. Even if we were to assume that grant of patta pass book under Section 3 of the Act, is not necessarily a quasi judicial proceedings but merely an administrative proceeding, even in such cases, the requirement of adherence to principles of natural justice cannot be dispensed with. Any decision, if it is likely to visit any with adverse condition, that party has to be necessarily issued notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing and the objections raised must be dealt with. Long years ago, in A.K Kraipak Vs.Union of India reported in AIR 1970 SCC 150 it has been held that the dividing line between the administrative proceeding in exercise of an administrative power and a quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated, leaving one wondering as to where one actually stands, sometimes. Thus, the obligation for adherence of Principles of Natural Justice is insisted upon is an administrative exercise of power, if the decision is likely to impact someone else.
37. We are of the opinion that the order passed by the Tahsildhar on 13.01.2012, granting Patta Pass Book in favour of the respondent/petitioner Company, without putting appellants on notice is an erroneous exercise. The Tahsidhar ought to have put the appellants on notice and he ought to have comprehensively dealt with the applications submitted by the writ petitioner on 14.12.2011 and earlier thereto to by one of the vendors of the writ petitioners, seeking such Patta pass book.
38. The learned single Judge has very rightly come to the conclusion that the disputed questions of title of immovable property cannot be gone into by the revenue Courts which include the Tahsildhar and District Revenue Officer. Such disputed questions of title require lot of evidence to be let in both oral and documentary for their resolution. Only after careful analysis of evidence so gathered, an appropriate finding can be recorded by the Civil Court. Therefore, to the extent of the observation made by the learned single Judge, with regard to the exercise carried out by the District Revenue Officer cannot be completely faulted. As a rule of thumb, the Revenue Courts shall restrain themselves from entering into or adjudicating upon any disputed questions of title. The revenue authorities, for the purpose of justifying passing an order granting of Patta Pass Book are entitled to be satisfied about the prima facie right or interest or title of the applicant in the land in question. Beyond that, it cannot enter into the fact that as to who has got better title over the other. Ass the more so when the title is disputed by several parties like in the instant case.
39. One feature which we want to advert is that at one point of time, the temple Sri Marundeswara Swamiyar Devastham represented by the then Dharmakartha Thiru.V.Subraya Chettiyar issued a patta in favour of Shri. P.S.Kesava Naickar over the extent of the lands in his occupation on 06.02.1943. The patta so granted clearly describes that the lands are situated in Sothirum Tiruvanmiyur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District. This patta only recognizes the right of the occupier of the land covered by that patta for the purpose of cultivating the lands and for purpose of paying the land revenue etc., Thus, it appears that as rightly contended by Mr.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner that what has been granted by Shri.Marundeeswara temple in favour of Mr.P.S.Kesava Naickar has no right of sale of the lands, but a mere right to hold and cultivate such lands and the temple continues to be holder/owner of the lands. But, however, we will not venture into pronouncing of any final decision thereon. We can observe from this stand that it is imperative that the temple Tiruvanmiyur Shri.Marundeeswar Devasthanam should also have been given an opportunity to participate in all the proceedings. In this contest, it would be wholly appropriate for us to specifically notice what has been recorded at the foot of the village map published for the lands covered by No.140, Tiruvanmiyur Village. It was clearly recorded therein that G.O.No.2302 Revenue, dated 01.09.1951 as well as the Notification under Section 1(4) of the Madras Estates abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 was published at Page Nos. 1 to 3 part 1 of part 1 of the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 07.09.1995 (extraordinary). It was also recorded at the foot of this village map that the initial survey of the lands were carried out as per the board reference thereon 15.04.1957 and the notification under Section 5 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act VIII of 1923 was published at page No.1412 and 1413 of part II of the Fort St. George Gazettee dated 14.10.1961 and similarly under Section 13 of the same Act, when the survey of any land or boundary which has been notified under Section 5 has been completed in accordance with the orders passed under Sections 9,10,11, 12-A or 12-B the survey officer shall notify the fact in the District Gazette and a copy of such notification shall be pasted in the village chavadi, if any, of the village to which the survey relates. Accordingly the finalization of the survey operations were notified under Section 13 of the Act and it was published at page no.190 of the District Gazettee of Chenglepet District dated 01.07.1968. Thus, the record relating to Estates abolition relating to Thiruvanmiyur and also Ryotwari Pattas granted in accordance with law has also got to be verified and when once survey operations are completed in accordance with the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act VIII of 1923, correlation operation has got to be necessarily carried out.
40. The settled legal principles with regard to the right of protection of the possession of immovable property has been revisited by a Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda Versus M.Varadappa Naidu reported in AIR 2004 SC 4609. The relevant principles have been culled out in paragraph 8 and 9 in the following words.
8.It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trepasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser of interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peacefual and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a filmsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner.
9. It is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions. Illustratively, we may refer to Munshi Ram and Ors. V. Delhi Administration (1968) 2 SCR 455, Puran Singh and ors. V. The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518 and RamRattan and Ors. V.State of Uttarpradesh (1977) 1 SCC 188. The authorities need not be multiplied. In Munshi Ram and Ors's case (supra), it was held that no one, including the true owner, has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case, unless he is evicted in the due course of law, he is entilted to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. But merely spray or even intermitent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the right owner must be settled possession, extending over a sufficiently long period of time and acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the righful owner. The rightful may re-enter and re-instate himself provided he does not use more force than is necessary. Such entry will be viewed only a resistance to an intrusion upon his possession which has never been lost. A stray act of trespass or a possession which has not matured into settled possession , can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force. In Puran Singh and Ors's case (supra), the Court clarified that it is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to when the possession of a trespasser can mature into settled possession. The 'settled possession' must (i) effective, (ii)undisturbed and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt and concealment by the trespasser. The phrase settled possession does not carry any special charm of magic in it, nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in a strait-jacket. An occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession. The Court laid down the following tests which may be adopted as a working rule for determining the attributes of 'settled possession':
(i)That the trespasser must be in actual physical possession of the property over a sufficiently long period;
(ii)That the possession must be to the knowledge (either express of implied) of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser and which contains an element of animus possidendi. The nature of possession of the trespasser would however be a matter to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case.
(iii) The process of dispossession of the true owner by the trespasser must be complete and final and must be acquiesced to by the true owner; and
(iv) That one of the usual tests to determine the quality of settlement possession, in the case of culturable land, would be whether or not the trespasser after having taken possession, had grown any crop. If the crop had been grown by the trespasser, then evenly true owner has no right to destroy the crop grown by the trespasser and take forcible possession. "
41. Therefore, the possession of the immovable property is one of the important and salient features and that also has to be kept in mind by the revenue authorities.
42. Yet anther principle which we need to bear in mind was if, by setting aside a particular order, which is otherwise irregular and or illegal, imperfect order should not be revived. In the instant case, the learned single Judge has set aside the impugned order dated 07.01.2013 passed by the District Revenue Officer for, the District Revenue Officer went into deciding the title claim and restored the patta granted in favour of the 1st respondent-Writ Petitioner by the Tahsildar on 13.01.2012. Virtually, the order passed by the Tahsildhar is without putting on notice all the necessary parties and hence the order which was otherwise irregular and illegal gets revived. In such circumstances, the ideal course to be followed would have been to restore the proceedings back to the file of the Tahsildhar by setting aside the proceedings dated 13.01.2002 as well. Hence, the Tahsildhar is directed to put all the parties on notice, including Sri Marundeeswarar Temple, Thiruvanmiyur and Commissioner of HR & CE and also after due consideration of relevant records including the records relating to Estates abolition, Tiruvanmiyur Village, appropriate orders shall be passed by the Tahsildhar. It goes without saying that whoever is seeking a title to the disputed lands, such party has to approach the civil Court and seek appropriate declaration. While doing so, it is made clear that State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Principal Secretary to Government or whoever is the highest ranking officer above the Secretary in Revenue Department shall be impleaded to the civil suit. Similarly, District Collector in which Tiruvanmiyur falls, and Marundeeswarar Temple have to be impleaded in the Civil Suit. Any adjudication with regard to the title of the disputed land shall not be embarked upon in the absence of Tiruvanmiyur Marundeswarar temple represented by its Trustee and or the Executive Officer and, if necessary, the Commissioner, HR & CE, should also be impleaded.
43.Accordingly, we dispose of the appeals with a direction to the Tahsildhar to undertake the exercise of considering the applications made by the writ petitioner on 14.11.2011 and any such application made prior thereto by any other party for grant of patta pass book, only by putting all parties on notice, including the temple referred to supra and decide the issue. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(N.R.R.J.) (M.D.I.,J.)
01.08.2017
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
tsi/arr
NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.
AND
M.DHANAPALAN,J.
tsi/arr
To
1. Pee and Dee Lands Holdings Private Limited
rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
N.Palaniswamy, No.82, Cathedral Road,
Gopalapuram, Madras-86.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Chennai.
3. The Tahsildar,
Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk.
W.A.Nos.1625 and 1626/2016 and 915/2017
01.08.2017