A T GANAPATHI Vs. COLLECTOR CUDDALORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had purchased a vacant site from one Selvaraj by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.04.2007. THE vacant site in S.No.353/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 is at Kottai Madil Street, (Buddha Street), Pennadam Town, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District. As per the sale deed, the land measures east-west 37 - feet and north-south 75 feet. In the sale deed, it is mentioned that there was a pathway and according to the petitioner, it was mistakenly mentioned in the sale deed. According to the petitioner, the revenue records also show wrong entries.

(2.) HENCE, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.295 of 2007 before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi, praying for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of 'B' schedule property. 'B' schedule property is 9 ft east-west and 75 ft north-south in the 'A' schedule property, that measures 37 - ft east-west and 75 ft north-south. There is also another prayer of mandatory injunction directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to rectify the revenue records relating to suit 'B' schedule property by removing the entry as 'Panchayat road or land' and to show it as petitioner's private property.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the order of the first respondent is illegal. Being a statutory authority, the first respondent should have signed the order but the order did not have the signature. Further, it is stated that the first respondent ought not to have delegated his work to the fourth respondent, his subordinate. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the order is null and void.