Madras High Court
The Executive Officer vs The Tahsildar on 24 August, 2021
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.2332 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.2332 of 2010
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010
The Executive Officer,
Palla Palayam Town Panchayat,
Palla Palayam,
Sulur Taluk,
Coimbatore District. .... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Tahsildar,
Palladam Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur.
3. The District Revenue Officer,
Collectorate Campus,
Coimbatore District.
4. The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Office of the Collector,
Coimbatore.
5. Jothimani
6. P.Devaraj
7. P.Chandrasekaran .... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2332 of 2010
Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the issue of the order dated 14.11.2009, in
proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.27749/08/E1 duly issued by the District
Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, the third respondent herein, in confirming
the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer of Tiruppur, the
second respondent in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.6795/2007/A2
dated 15.05.2008 in rejecting the case of the petitioner, Town Panchayat
seeking to the cancelation of the sub-division and the consequent issue of
patta in connection with the lands measuring 92 Ares comprised in
Survey No.100/78 situated at Oddar Palayam Village, Palla Palayam
Town Panchayat, Sulur Taluk that had been earmarked for public
purposes and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel
the sub-division and consequent issue of patta in favour of the fifth and
sixth respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ashok Kumar
For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
Government Advocate.
For R5 & R6 : Mr.S.Udayakumar
For R7 : Mr.S.Sivakumar
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to issue of the order dated 14.11.2009, in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.27749/08/E1 duly issued by the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, the third respondent herein, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2332 of 2010 in confirming the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer of Tiruppur, the second respondent in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.6795/2007/A2 dated 15.05.2008 in rejecting the case of the petitioner, Town Panchayat seeking to the cancellation of the sub- division and the consequent issue of patta in connection with the lands measuring 92 Ares comprised in Survey No.100/78 situated at Oddar Palayam Village, Palla Palayam Town Panchayat, Sulur Taluk that had been earmarked for public purposes and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the sub-division and consequent issue of patta in favour of the fifth and sixth respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the lands comprised in Survey Nos.99 and 100 situated at Oddar Palayam Village, Palladam Taluk, ad-measuring 8 Ares 35 Cents, owned by one L.Subramaniam, S/o.Lakshmi Narashiman and he approached the Deputy Director, Town Planning, Coimbatore, to layout the subject property. It was approved in L.P/R(C.N.) No.173/82 by the planning permission and also by revised layout plan in L.P./R(C.P.N.) No.4/85. As per the revised layout plan, the lands in question that had been earmarked as roads, cross roads, sub https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2332 of 2010 roads, lanes, common areas, park, school and creche have to be gifted in favour of the local panchayat. Accordingly, ad-measuring 92 Ares have been allotted for that purpose and the said L.Subramaniam executed a gift settlement deed dated 22.02.1985 registered vide document No.550 of 1985 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Singanallur.
3. After the gift deed, the common area meant for public purpose vested with the petitioner. In pursuant to the said gift deed, the patta had issued in favour of the petitioner in Patta No.381. After laying the road and the other public amenities, a portion of the land ad-measuring 7 Ares had been kept vacant. Utilising the said circumstances, the sale deed was created for the said land ad-measuring 7 Ares in favour of one Palanichamy, S/o. Narayanasamy, registered sale deed dated 26.08.1992 vide document No.3140/1992 ad-measuring 3792 sq.ft. comprised in Ka.Sa.No.99 and 100. It is relevant to extract the schedule mentioned in the said sale deed as follows :-
“nfhit. hp/o/L/rp';fhey;Y}h; rg;oL.
nfhit khtl;lk;. gy;ylk; jhYf;fh. xl;lh;
ghisak; fpuhkk; f/r/99. 100 be/fhiyfspy;
cs;s g{kp tifawh brhj;ij ny mt[l; gpshd;
nghl;L ico gpshid nfhit efh; Cuikg;g[
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2332 of 2010
KJepiy Jiz ,af;Feh; mYtyfj;jpy;
jhf;fy; bra;J nkw;go ,af;Feh; mth;fspd;
m';fPfhuk; bgw;w tiu gl vz;/v!;/gp-Mh;
(rp/vd;) be/173-82I jpUj;jp nkw;go nfhit
efh; Cuikg;g[ KJepiy Jiz ,af;Feh;
mth;fshy; m';fPfupf;fg;gl;l tiugl v!;/vy;/gp-
Mh;/(rp/gp/vd;) be/4-85 vd m';fPfhuk; bgw;w
tiugl vz; goa[s;s kid $hfh brhj;Jf;F
brf;Fge;jpa[k; mo mst[k;
fpHg[wk; ehsJ njjp vd;dplk; fpuak;
bgw;W n$hjpkzp fpua $hfh
nky;g[wk; ts;spak;khs; g{kp
tlg[wk; 30 moafy fpHnky; ny mt[l;
nuhL
bjd;g[wk; mhp$d fhydp nuhL
,jd;kj;jpapy; +
fpHg[wk; bjd;tly; - 96 mo
nky;g[wk; bjd;tly; - 96 mo
tlg[wk; fpHnky; - 36 mo
bjd;g[wk; fpHnky; - 43 mo
,e;j mst[fs; bfhz;l 3792 rJuofs;
bfhz;l kid $hfht[k;/”
4. It is very clear that the said Palanichamy did not even mention the house plot, though stated the layout approval number and also revised layout number granted by the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Coimbatore. In turn, the respondents 5 and 6 purchased the said https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2332 of 2010 property by way of two registered sale deeds dated 26.08.1992 vide registered document No.3139 and 3140 of 1992 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Singanallur ad-measuring 3.5 ares each. In the year 2007, they applied for sub-division of the said lands and the same was sub-divided as 100/75-A, 100/75-B and 100/75-C. They were also issued patta on the strength of the sale deeds.
5. Admittedly, the said property was originally gifted in favour of the petitioner by a gift settlement deed dated 22.02.1985 registered vide document No.550 of 1985. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent for cancellation of patta issued in favour of the respondents 5 and 6 herein. The second respondent, by an order dated 15.05.2008, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the fifth and sixth respondents, after purchase of the land, they applied for planning permission to construct house. They also paid necessary development charges for planning permission. Though, initially the respondents 5 and 6 were granted planning permission to construct house, it was cancelled subsequently. However, the development charges which was paid by them was not returned to them.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision before the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2332 of 2010 third respondent. Unfortunately, the third respondent also without considering the above grounds and simply dismissed the revision for the reason that the petitioner did not take any steps to cancel the patta as well as the sale deeds stood in the name of the fifth and sixth respondents for the past 15 years.
7. It is seen that the subject property along with other property with 92 Ares originally on 22.02.1985 was gifted in favour of the petitioner. After laying the road, the other public amenities, a portion of the land ad-measuring 7 Ares were stand kept vacant. Therefore, the sale deed in respect of the said portion of the land created in favour of one Palanichamy, S/o.Narayanasamy by a sale deed dated 09.05.1986 registered vide document No.1144/1986. In turn, the respondents 5 and 6 purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated 26.08.1992 vide document No.3140/1992. After having been kept upon till 2005 and applied for planning permission to construct the house. Though the respondents 5 and 6 were issued planning permission to construct the house, after receipt of development charges, subsequently, it was cancelled. Therefore, when the patta stands in the name of the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2332 of 2010 for the very same subject property, on the strength of the sale deed dated 26.08.1992. The respondents 5 and 6 are not entitled for any patta without cancelling the earlier gift deed dated 22.02.1985 and the patta issued in favour of the petitioner in Patta No.381.
8. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second and third respondents are hereby set aside and the patta issued in favour of the respondents 5 and 6 herein are cancelled. However, the respondents 5 and 6 are at liberty to approach the Civil Court in respect of their title over the subject property by adding their vendors, vendor's vendor and the petitioner herein in the manner known to law. If the petitioner is succeeded in the suit, they can very well approach the authority concern for issuance of patta.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No cost.
24.08.2021 Lpp/Jd Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2332 of 2010 To
1. The Tahsildar, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur.
3. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Campus, Coimbatore District.
4. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Office of the Collector, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2332 of 2010 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp W.P.No.2332 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010 24.08.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/