Madras High Court
Dr.G.Venkatraman vs The District Revenue Officer on 20 June, 2023
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T.Asha
W.P.(MD) Nos.7200 and 11984 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) Nos.7200 and 11984 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD) Nos.6631, 7838, 10331 and 10332 of 2020
1.Dr.G.venkatraman
2.A.James ... Petitioners in W.P(MD) No.7200 of 2020
Chris Santha Shakila Motha ... Petitioner in W.P(MD) No.11984 of 2020
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Srirangam,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Srirangam
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Tashildar,
Srirangam,
Tiruchirappalli District.
4.The Taluk Head Surveyor,
Srirangam,
Tiruchirappalli District.
_________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.7200 and 11984 of 2020
5.S.Mirza Bhanu
6.Ravoodha
7.Nazreen Banu ... Respondents
(in both petitions)
Common Prayer :- Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of
the first respondent dated 16.03.2020 vide No.Pa.Mu.Aa5/32712/2013
and quash the same.
For Petitioners : M/s.KR.Shivasankari
for Ms.J.Anandhavalli
For R1 to R4 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj
Special Government Pleader
For R5 to R7 : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram
(in both petitions)
COMMON ORDER
Challenging the order passed by the first respondent, dated 16.03.2020, the petitioners are before this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner in W.P(MD) No.7200 of 2020 had purchased about 5 plots under five _________ Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.7200 and 11984 of 2020 registered sale deeds executed by the owners through their power agents as set out herein below:-
Date Registered as Plot No.
Document No.
25.07.2011 3993/2011 27
25.07.2011 3994/2011 26
26.07.2011 4005/2011 11
26.07.2011 4006/2011 10
27.09.2011 5526/2011 24
3. Likewise, the second petitioner in W.P(MD) No.7200 of 2020 had purchased two plots under registered sale deeds dated 26.03.2012 and the petitioner in W.P(MD) No.11984 of 2020 had also purchased the property to an extent of 3800 sq.ft under registered sale deed dated 10.05.2019 from Lavanya Property Devlopers. Pursuant to the sale deeds, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Revenue records were mutated in their name. The petitioners traced their title to the same from the owners. The property in question are situated in Survey No.151/1 Nagamangalam Village, Manikandan Panchayat Union, Tirchy District. The total extent of land in Survey No.151 was 3.53 acres.
_________ Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.7200 and 11984 of 2020
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that in the year 1986, 68 employees of the Co-optex purchased the above lands under four registered sale deeds. The title was traced through the document dated 29.09.1950 registered as Document No.4850/1950 on the file of the District Registrar Office, Trichy and an extent of 67 cents to the deed dated 15.07.1983 registered as document No.4351/83. All these purchasers had executed power of attorney in favour of two persons, namely, M.Mohammed and D.Manuvel Manickkaraj. The land in question was plotted out into house-sites and approved lay-out was formed. The approval was granted on 08.08.1996 by the Commissioner, Manigandam Panchayat Union.
5. It appears that in the year 1997, an extent of 33 cents in Survey No.151 was shown to be comprised in Survey No.151/1 and remaining extent of 2 acres and 86 cents was shown to be comprised in Survey No. 151/2. The petitioners 1 and 2 in WP(MD) No.7200 of 2020 and the vendor of the petitioner in WP(MD) No.11984 of 2020 were in the dark _________ Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.7200 and 11984 of 2020 about the alteration that had taken place. On the basis of this alternation, documents have been executed. In the year 2012, the respondents 5 to 7 attempted to interfere with the possession of the petitioners 1 and 2 in WP(MD) No.7200 of 2020 and the vendor of the petitioner in WP(MD) No.11984 of 2020 and they had immediately contacted the power agents, who had executed the sale in their favour. Immediately, they had given a petition to the second respondent to set aside the order of the third respondent, by which, Survey No.151/1 had been sub-divided into 151/2 and restored the status of the property as stood in the year 1997. After notice to the respondents 5 to 7, the third respondent held a detailed enquiry and passed an order setting aside the sub division of Survey No. 151 to an extent of 2.32.0 ares. This order was challenged by the respondents 5 to 7 by filing a revision before the first respondent. A detailed counter came to be filed on the side of the petitioners 1 and 2 in WP(MD) No.7200 of 2020 and the vendor of the petitioner in WP(MD) No.11984 of 2020. However, by order, dated 16.03.2020, the first respondent allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the second respondent. This order was received by the power agents in the _________ Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.7200 and 11984 of 2020 month of May 2020. The petitioners, therefore, filed the above writ petitions for the relief claimed therein.
6. The petitioners would submit that the respondents 5 to 7 did not have any semblance of the right to the property and they have not produced any documents whatsoever to prove their ownership and possession of the property. They would, therefore, submit that their inclusion in the patta, was erroneous. The order of the Tahsildar, Srirangam, ordering sub-division in favour of the respondents 5 to 7 herein was challenged by the power agents, from whom, the petitioners 1 and 2 in WP(MD) No.7200 of 2020 and the vendor of the petitioner in WP(MD) No.11984 of 2020 had purchased the property, by filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy. It is also submitted by the petitioners that the respondents 5 to 7 had filed a suit in O.S.No. 1603 of 2010, on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, in which they had an order of interim injunction, since serious issue with reference to title, has been put forwarded. _________ Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.7200 and 11984 of 2020
7. The learned Government Advocate has filed a counter touching upon the history of the lands in question and submitted that composite Survey No.151 had been sub-divided into Survey Nos.151/1 and 151/2. The Survey No.151/2 further sub-divided as 151/2A, 151/2B and 151/2C. Thereafter, Survey No.151/2C has been further sub-divided as 151/2C2A, 151/2C2B, 151/2C2C and 151/2C2D based on the sale deeds produced after 1997. UDR was sub-divided without giving notice to the pattadhars. The respondents have also stated that since rival claimants are disputing the title of the property, the remedy available is only to move the Civil Court for orders.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records.
9. From the perusal of the records as also the arguments, it is crystal clear that there is a serious dispute with reference to the ownership and possession of the property. The respondents 5 to 7 would _________ Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.7200 and 11984 of 2020 trace their title to the property through registered documents. That apart, they have also filed a suit in O.S.No.1603 of 2010 on the file District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, for permanent injunction, which was subsequently transferred to the District Munsif Court, Srirangam and renumbered as O.S.No.650 of 2019 and the same is pending. The petitioners on the other hand traced their title from the power of attorney holders of the 68 purchasers, who constituted Tamil Nadu Co-opertaive Employees Sangam. Pursuant to the sale deeds executed in the years 2011, 2012 and 2019 respectively, the petitioners 1 and 2 in WP(MD) No.7200 of 2020 and the petitioner in WP(MD) No.11984 of 2020 had purchased property in Manikandam Panchayat Union. Therefore, both parties are relying upon registered documents to establish their title to the property, which cannot be considered by this Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction. Under the impugned order also, the first respondent, while setting aside the order passed by the second respondent, had directed the parties to approach the Civil Court, since the issue of title was involved.
_________ Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.7200 and 11984 of 2020
10. In view of above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.06.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes cp To
1.The District Revenue Officer, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirangam Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Tashildar, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District.
4.The Taluk Head Surveyor, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District.
_________ Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.7200 and 11984 of 2020 P.T.ASHA, J.
cp W.P.(MD) Nos.7200 and 11984 of 2020 Dated: 20.06.2023 _________ Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis