S KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VILLUPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent the Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions raises a common question, they are taken up for disposal together. The challenge in W.P.No.5655/2008 is to an order passed by the District Collector, Villupuram District dated 24.1.2008 and for a direction to take action against the private respondents 4 & 5.

(2.) The relief sought for in W.P.No.21772/2009 is for a issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the Sub-Registrar Kandamangalam to register the sale deed dated 29.04.2009 assigned pending document No.31/2009. The fourth respondent in W.P.No.5655/2008 is the power of attorney agent of the petitioner in W.P.No.21772/2009.

(3.) The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.5655/2008 is that the respondents 4 & 5 approached the land owners of the agricultural lands in survey No.9/1, 9/2 & 9/3 near Pondicherry Vilupuram road, and purchased the same and the lands are stated to be adjacent to the land owned by the petitioner. The petitioner would further state that the lands so purchased have been divided into housing plots and without obtaining proper lay out approval, the same are sold to the petitioner. It has been further stated that a complaint was made by the petitioner to the District Collector on 28.02.2009 to stop the sale of unapproved plots. A similar complaint was also made to the third respondent and since no action was taken the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.28560/07 and this Court by order dated 21.09.2007 directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2005. Pursuant to the same the Assistant Director of Panchayat directed the petitioner to appear for an enquiry of 19.11.2007 and thereafter, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's representation, this order of rejection dated 24.01.2008 is assailed in this Writ Petition stating that the first respondent merely acted on the report of the Block Development Officer and failed to see that the 4th & 5th respondents have not obtained any permission from the third respondent for conversion of agricultural lands into housing plots. Further, it is stated that a sale deed register in document No.619/2005, on the file of the third respondent pertains to places allotted for public purpose, which fact was not considered by the first respondent.