Madras High Court
S.Muthaiah vs The District Revenue Officer on 17 August, 2015
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
W.P.(MD)No.1528 of 2013
W.P.(MD)No.11025 of 2013 and 7486 of of 2015
and
M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 and 1 and 2 of 2015
W.P.(MD).No.1528 of 2013:-
S.Muthaiah ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1528/2013
Baluchamy ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7486/2015
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai.
2.A.Karmegam ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records to the
impugned order vide Na.Ka.No.Pi4/26857/2010 dated 13.09.2012 passed by the
first respondent and quash the same and pass such other order or orders as
this Court deems it fit.
!For Petitioner : M/s.G.R.Swaminathan
^For R.1 : Mr.S.Kumar, AGP
For R.2 : Mr.N.Thiyagarajan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.R.Senthilkumar
W.P.(MD).No.11025 of 2013:-
S.Thara Umar ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.11025/2013
Vs
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai.
2.A.Karmegam
3.The Tahsildar,
Manamadurai Taluk,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records relating to the impugned order vide Na.Ka.No.Pi4/26857/2010 dated
13.09.2012 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently
direct the second respondent to restore the name of the petitioner in the
revenue records in respect of Survey No.325/2B, Soorakkulam Village,
Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner : M/s.Antony Arul Raj
For R.1&3 : Mr.S.Kumar, AGP
For R.2 : Mr.N.Thiyagarajan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.R.Senthilkumar
W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015:-
Baluchamy ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7486/2015
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.
4.Karmegam ... Respondents
For Petitioner : M/s.K.R.Laxman
For R.1 to 3 : Mr.S.Kumar, AGP
For R.4 : Mr.N.Thiyagarajan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.R.Senthilkumar
:COMMON ORDER
Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are all taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
2.The following facts are culled out in W.P.(MD).No.1528 of 2013, which are as follows:-
2.1. The petitioner averred in his affidavit that the property comprised in S.No.325/2 in Konnakulam Village, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District measuring an extent of three acres 61 cents are covered under patta No.55, which was purchased in the year 2002 by the petitioner and his business associates, namely, Sekar and Thennavan from one Mookkan and Balusamy, sons of Late Muthukonar and Meenakshi Sundaram respectively. It is claimed that the patta in respect of the said land stood in the names of Mookkan and Balusamy. Since Meenakshi Sundaram was a cousin brother, by way of an abundant caution, he was also made as a party. It is further averred that the petitioner developed the said land and sold the same to nearly 90 persons. One of them has also changed the patta in his favour and some of them have put up constructions.
2.2. While the matter stood thus, one of the purchasers wanted to dispose of his plot. At that stage, he came to the know the impugned order dated 13.09.2012 has been passed cancelling the patta that stood in the name of the vendors, namely, the said Mookkan and Balusamy. It seems that the second respondent, namely, A.Karmegam, had given a complaint to the first respondent alleging that there has been an erroneous entry during UDR in favour of Balusamy and Mookkan in respect of the subject property in question. The appeal was given as late as on 26.09.2011 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai. Thereupon, the first respondent took up the matter and passed the impugned order cancelling the earlier entries and directing that the name of the second respondent should be entered in the revenue records. According to the petitioner, the said order has been passed without notice to any of them. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order of the first respondent dated 13.09.2012, in and by which, the patta which stood in the name of the vendors were changed to the second respondent herein, namely, one A.Karmegam. Therefore, the developer of the land in question has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.1528 of 2013.
3. W.P.(MD).No.11025 of 2013:-
The facts pleaded in W.P.(MD).No.11025 of 2013 are similar to W.P.(MD).No.1528 of 2013 except to state that the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.11025 of 2013 is the purchaser of the plot owned by the said S.Muthaiah, who is the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1528 of 2013. It is further averred that subsequent to his purchase, he has put up construction, for which, he also obtained an electricity connection, apart from assessing tax to the said property.
4. W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015:-
The petitioner has averred that he owned a land in S.No.325/2 at Konnakulam Village, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District. According to him, the said property is an ancestral property, which was sold out to one Sekar, Muthiah and Thennavan. Further, the petitioner alleges that the fourth respondent herein has specifically described the name of petitioner's father as Athian, whereas, his father's name is Late.Muthukonar. There is no such person in the name of Athian in the said village. Before passing the impugned order, no notice was given to the petitioner. It is further alleged that the third respondent without any notice to the petitioner has passed an order by referring the matter to the second respondent for adjudication by treating it is an appeal proceedings to be dealt by the second respondent vide his order dated 27.11.2009 under proceedings No.P.Mu/A1/3990/2009. On such reference by the third respondent, the second respondent has taken cognizance over the issue, wherein, the name of the petitioner as well as his brother's name were wrongly described in the said proceedings. Even the second respondent's notice was not served upon him. It seems that the said Karmegam has placed certain documents relating to the said lands namely the statement of VAO, 10(1) Village accounts copy, adangal copy, village accounts book copy, ?A? Register copy, computer 10(1) copy, adangal extract copy for certain fasli years. All those documents carry only the name of the petitioner. Further, the said Karmegam has produced an order of Madurai Assistant Land Revenue Officer dated 21.12.1969 under SR.No.498/SVG/69 and also has pleaded that the name of Andi Konar, son of Muthu Konar is found in the said order for the purpose of issuance of pattta for S.No.325/2, Konnakulam Village, Manamadurai Taluk. By placing reliance to the said order, the impugned order came to be passed by holding that the patta which stood in favour of Mookan and Baluchamy is wrong and also directed the Tahsildar, Manamadurai to issue patta in the name of the said Karmegam. Further, when the petitioner insisted under the Right to Information Act, seeking the validity / genuity / availability of the document of Madurai Assistant Land Revenue Officer dated 21.12.1969 under SR.No.498/SVG/69, the information regarding the said document was not available. It is further averred that if an opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner, certainly, the petitioner would have defended the case. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the vendors did not have any title to the property in question and they fraudulently sold it to various parties. The original patta and the other revenue records did not stand in the name of Mookkan and Balusamy son of Andi. As per the sale deed, the vendor's father name is Muthukonar. In the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015, in which, Baluchamy's father's name is different from the father's name mentioned in the patta is annexed in page No.2 of the typed set of papers along with this Writ Petition. Though notice was issued to the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015, he did not choose to appear. After conducting detailed enquiry, it came to be known that manipulation and change of name was done to the effect that the name of the original Pattdharar is Andikonar, son of Muthukonar, which were later changed into Mookan, Balusamy, son of Andi, without any basis. Further, the second respondent produced the Settlement Order dated 21.12.1969 granted in favour of his grandfather namely Muthukonar and also revenue documents containing the name of his father's name Andikonar, son of Muthukonar upto the year 1985. Further, as far as the delay is concerned, the said Karmegam was working in various places and at the time of dispossessing his property he came across the fraud committed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015 belatedly. The wrong entry made in 10(1) accounts was rectified by issuing fresh patta in the name of the second respondent as he is the grandson of the original pattadharar Muthukonar, as per the documents available. Unless any contra evidence is marked by either side of the parties, there was no necessity of referring the matter to the Civil Court. As per the Government order, the first respondent is the competent authority to rectify the mistake made in the U.D.R. Programme. If at all the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015 is aggrieved, he can overcome the settlement produced by Karmegam before the Civil forum. Eventually, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition.
6. The second respondent, namely, A.Karmegam, has filed a counter affidavit stating that even as per the patta produced by the petitioner, the patta stands in the name of one Mookkan and Balusamy, who are the sons of one Andi. The persons who have executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and others in 2002 are one Mookan and Balusamy, son of late.Muthu Konar.
Thus, the identity of persons who executed the sale deed is quite different from the person in whose name the patta was issued. In the entire affidavit, there is no explanation for this discrepancy. The land in Survey No.352/2 is a ryotwari land. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai in exercise of his power under Section 12(1) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act 26 of 1963, after holding an enquiry passed an order dated 21.12.1969 granting ryotwari patta in favour of his father Andi Konar, son of Muthu Konar.
6.1. While the matter stood thus, at the time of UDR proceedings, without any authority corrections have been made manually by substituting the names of one Mookkan and Balusamy sons of one Andi in the place of his father Late Sri.Andi, son of Muthu Konar. When Karmegam approached the official respondents to get individual patta, the fraudulent action came to light. Notices were issued to the said Mookan and Balusamy at all stages by the official respondents at different stages of the enquiry. However, they did not make any appearance. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015 submitted that the property in question is an ancestral property. They have sold the properties as early as in the year 2002 itself for more than 90 persons. The said Karmegam was keeping quiet for quite a long time. In the case on hand, since the petitioner purposely stated that the father of the petitioner is Adiyan, no notice was issued to the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015. But, actually, the father of the petitioner is Andi Kone. Since the notice for enquiry has been not served on the petitioner, it is against the principles of natural justice. Thus, the counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing the order of the first respondent.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.11025 of 2013 submitted that he is an innocent purchaser and therefore, he shall not be put to peril under any circumstances as he has purchased the property in question for a valuable consideration from the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1528 of 2013. Therefore, he prayed for allowing this Writ Petition.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Karmegam in W.P.(MD).No.11025 of 2013 vehemently submitted that a clear fraud has been committed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015, when the petitioner was away from the lands in question. He has no authority whatsoever to deal with the property. With the connivance of some revenue officials, the said Baluchamy and others have manipulated the records pertaining to Karmegam. The second respondent karmegam proved his claim by producing the documents as required by the District Revenue Officer for passing the impugned order. After satisfying the documents submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed, which need not be disturbed by this Court on any ground. To sum up, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition.
10. I heard the submissions made by all the parties and perused the materials available on record.
11. Since the crux of the issue revolved around in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015, the other two Writ Petitions will have only a cascading effect and hence, this Court deems it fit to deal with the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015. From the facts pleaded and submissions made by the parties, the following facts are clear:-
(i)The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015, namely, Baluchamy, son of Andikone @ Andikonar, claims that he is the owner of the property in question. He further claims that it is his ancestral property. Subsequently, the said land was divided into plots by them and sold to atleast 90 persons.
(ii)The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1528 of 2013, namely, S.Muthaiah, claims that he purchased the said land along with his business associates, namely, Sekar and Thennavan from one Mookan and Balusamy.
(iii)The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.11028 of 2013 is the purchaser of the plot from the said S.Muthiah.
12. The primordial question is that whether the order impugned in this Writ Petition will pass the test of scrutiny. On scanning through the materials placed before this Court, this Court, on the face of it, finds that a discrepancy is noted in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1528 of 2013. In the cause title, he has stated that his father's name is Mr.Andiokone @ Andikonar (Andikonar is written by hand), whereas, in paragraph No.5, he himself has admitted that his father name is Late.Muthukonar. The contradiction is further seen in the typed set of papers produced at Page No.6, wherein, manual entries are made in respect of S.No.352/2 as if the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015 are the sons of Andi. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015 has not produced any legal heir certificate to the effect that they are the sons of the Andi. Inspite of continuous notices dated 24.08.2009, 14.09.2009, 26.10.2009 and 23.11.2009, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7486 of 2015 did not choose to appear for the best reasons known to them. However, it is seen that the said Karmegam has produced the Madurai Assistant Land Revenue Officer dated 21.12.1969 under SR.No.498/SVG/69 S.R.No.498/SVG/69. Further, as rightly pleaded in the counter affidavit of the District Revenue Officer that when there is an apparent error, as per the Government Order, he is the competent authority to rectify the mistake made in the UDR programme upon the proper enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a huge delay in approaching the official respondents to get the documents rectified and therefore, the impugned order has no legs to stand. It is common knowledge that a person who owns land cannot be expected to keep vigil over his lands round the clock without taking care of his actual job in which he is engaged.
13. As far as the impugned order in this Writ Petition is concerned, chronologically the dates and events have been culled out and eventually, the impugned order has been passed. There is no reason to call for the order of the District Revenue Officer, when it is very much in tact. On a bare perusal of the records placed before this Court and from the submissions made on either side, it is crystal clear that there are a lot of disputed facts involved in the issue on hand. This Court cannot conduct any roving enquiry as regards the title in question. Whether the notice was issued by wrongly mentioning the name of the father of the petitioner, Baluchamy and also the other disputed facts have only to be agitated before the Civil forum. Therefore, this Court is also unable to stretch its hands beyond the factual aspect pleaded in this Writ Petition.
14. In any event, if at all the petitioners are still aggrieved over impugned order in this Writ Petition, they have to overcome the Madurai Assistant Land Revenue Officer dated 21.12.1969 under SR.No.498/SVG/69, before the Civil forum only, if they desire so. Needless to mention that when the dispute clouds over the title, the proper course for the parties concerned is to approach the Civil Court and get their remedy redressed by marking evidence both oral and documentary. Therefore, there is no option for this Court but to drive away the respective parties to work out their remedy before the civil forum in the manner known to law.
Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The District Collector, Sivagangai.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District..