Madras High Court
Krishnan vs The District Revenue Officer on 21 July, 2015
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.07.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.(MD)No.9436 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015
Krishnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Trichy District, Trichy.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Trichy, Trichy District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thiruverambur Taluk,
Trichy District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Navalpattu Police Station,
Trichy-16.
5.S.Jamuna Devi
6.S.Vaishnavi Devi
7.S.Subashini Devi ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in
Na.Ka.A6/22123/2014 dated 19.05.2015, quash the same and consequently direct
the respondents to grant patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of
remaining 15.94 acres in New S.F.No.566/1, Old Paimash No.91, Chinna Sooriyur
Village, Trichy Taluk, Trichy District.
!For Petitioner : Ms.J.Maria Roseline
^For Respondents : Mrs.S.Bharathi,
Government Advocate for
R1 to R4
Mr.R.R.Kannan for R5 to R7
:ORDER
This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka. A6/22123/2014 dated 19.05.2015 and consequently direct the respondents to grant patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property to an extent of 15.94 acres in New S.F.No.566/1, Old Paimash No.91 in Chinna Sooriyur Village, Trichy Taluk, Trichy District.
2.It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the petitioner's father Ranganaicker purchased agricultural lands measuring 25 acres comprised in Old Paimash No.91, New S.F.No.566/1, situate at Chinna Sooriyur Village, Thiruverambur Taluk, Trichy District from one Mandhagini Ammal in the year 1955. Thereafter, consequent to the petitioner's father, the petitioner has been in possession of the property. The said lands were once inam lands and during abolition of inam tenure, ryotwari patta was granted jointly in the name of the petitioner's father and Mandhagini Ammal in respect of an extent of 10.50.00 Hectares equivalent to 25.94 acres in Old Paimash No.91, corresponding to New S.F.No.566/1. It appears that during settlement proceedings, the petitioner's father was mistakenly granted patta only in respect of 10 acres and for the remaining portion, patta was granted to Mandhagini Ammal. The said mistake never came to the knowledge of the petitioner's father during his life time and neither his vendor Mandhani Ammal nor her legal heirs took advantage of the mistake in the revenue entries. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said 25 acres of land by erecting live fence of Palmyra trees. The said land presently comprises of many trees, numbering about 350. The said Mandhagini Ammal owned extensive lands in Sooriyur Village and she sold properties in old Paimash Nos.109, 98, 80 and 106 in the year 1959 to one Veerappa Naidu and subsequent to his demise, his son and grandsons executed general Power of Attorney in favour of one K.P.S.S.Subbiah Raja Nadar who is the father of respondents 5 to 7. Item No.6 is the subject matter of the present contoversy, out of the 6 items mentioned in the schedule to the deed of power of attorney. The total extent of lands purchased by Veerappa Naidu in Old Paimash No.106 was only 10 acres. But the legal heirs of Veerappa Naidu executed Power Deed in favour of the father of respondents 5 to 7 in respect of 10.50.0 hectares, ie., 25.94 acres. In all, the old Paimash No.106 was correlated to new S.F.No.566/1 and the properties measuring 5 acres 31 cents each was sold by K.P.S.S.Subbiah Raja Nadar in favour of his daughters, ie., respondents 5 to 7 vide three separate sale deeds.
3.The petitioner states that the sale of properties admeasuring 15.93 acres by the said Subbiah Raja Nadar in favour of respondents 5 to 7 is illegal in as much as Veerappa Naidu from whom he derives title had purchased only 10 acres of lands in Old Paimash No.106. Furthermore, old Paimash No.106 can never be correlated to new S.F.No.566/1. As per settlement land records, old Paimash No.106, admeasuring 21.28 acres has been subdivided and renumbered as S.F.Nos.732, 733/1, 734/2 and 734/3, their extent being 12.0 Hectares, 2.88.0 Hectares, 0.10.0 Hectares and 0.13.0 Hectares, respectively. In these circumstances, the respondents 5 to 7 derive no title in respect of S.F.No.566/1, which is the exclusive property of the petitioner's father Ranganaicker. The petitioner further states that when the said Subbiah Raja Nadar, on the basis of the power deed, attempted to disturb the possession of the petitioner, he has filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.1150 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichy and the suit was decreed exparte in his favour. The petitioner states that the respondents 5 to 7 had created forged documents as if S.F.No.566/1 has been subdivided, and patta has been granted in their favour under UDR survey. The revenue authorities rightly failed to act upon the bogus patta available in the hands of respondents 5 to 7. The respondents 5 to 7 thereafter filed writ petitions before this Court to grant computer chitta to them, but the third respondent
-Tahsildar, after enquiry, dismissed the claim of respondents 5 to 7. They appealed to the second respondent, and the second respondent, without ascertaining as to how the respondents 5 to 7 were laying claim in respect of S.F.No.566/1, simply allowed their claim. On the revision preferred by the petitioner the first respondent simply confirmed the order passed by the second respondent, by passing the impugned order. Hence this writ petition.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order smacks of malafides and suffers from non-application of mind. The respondents 1 and 2 had failed to see whether any title passed to the respondents 5 to 7 in respect of S.F.No.566/1. The respondents 1 and 2 who are very well aware that old Paimash No.106 does not correlate to new S.F.No.566/1, still proceeded to pass the impugned order. The counsel further submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 simply ignored the civil court decree in O.S.No.1150 of 1987 obtained by the petitioner against the vendor / father of respondents 5 to 7, had committed contempt of Court. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that viewed from any angle, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is tainted with malafides, suffers for bias and is legally unsustainable.
5.Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate took notice for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.R.R.Kannan, learned counsel, took notice for the respondents 5 to 7 and they denied the averments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6.Mr.R.R.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7, vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner involved in forgery so as to grab the properties.
7.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
8.The disputed facts related to properties cannot be gone into by this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the respective parties to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate remedy. Pending disposal of the R.MAHADEVAN,J.
KM cases before the Civil Court, no alienation be made by either parties.
8.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No 21.07.2015
Internet : Yes/No
KM
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Trichy District, Trichy.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Trichy, Trichy District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thiruverambur Taluk,
Trichy District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Navalpattu Police Station,
Trichy-16.
W.P.(MD)No.9436 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015
.