RAJU SPINNING MILLS PVT LTD Vs. TAHSILDAR SRIVILLIPUTHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the writ petitions as well as the second respondent are one and the same, besides, the issues involved in the writ petitions are also common, hence, by consent of the counsel for both sides, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 23436 of 2002 is that the petitioner had purchased nearly 7.69 acres of land in Survey No. 148/1, 2, 3, and 4 of Padikkasuvaithanpatti Village of Srivilliputhur Taluk. THE vendors of the petitioners have prescribed title by virtue of earlier sale transaction, which took place from the year 1942 and 1943. In the Chitta and Adangal extract, the petitioner's name was shown as owner and necessary name transfer has already been effected in the patta. Earlier to this, it was in the name of the petitioner's predecessor in title. All the revenue records are in the name of the petitioner's predecessor in title. THE petitioner is the bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration. THE petitioner has obtained loan from IDBI bank and other banks and invested more than Rs. 9 crores for putting up construction, purchase of machineries and now running mill in the land. THE property was also subjected to equitable mortgage and the mill has also raised funds from private financiers. THE building was constructed after obtaining necessary approval and licence for running the mill was also obtained from the various departments and Electricity service connection to the petitioner's mill was given taking into consideration the ownership and the various regulations. Ultimately, the building was also subjected to property tax and the petitioner's factory started running from the year 1997. THE petitioner was also assessed to sales tax. While things are so, the first respondent, on the instructions of the second respondent, has cancelled the patta in the name of the petitioner without taking into consideration the representation of the petitioner dated 12.4.2002 and without even affording an opportunity to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the first respondent / Tahsildar has no power to pass an order contrary to the order dated 26.2.1974 of the Settlement Tahsildar. Even in the order, it was not taken into consideration that the predecessor in title and original owner Periyasamy Nadar has passed away on 13.12.1971 and his legal heirs were not brought on record, hence, impugned order is legally not sustainable. Even otherwise, the second respondent has not done anything for the past more than 30 years, after the alleged settlement patta, which itself is legally not sustainable and non est in the eyes of law. Inasmuch as the order is passed by an authority, settlement Tahsildar, who is not competent to pass such an order, the petitioner need not file any appeal, hence, he has come forward with the present writ petition. Even otherwise, admittedly, no notice has been served on the petitioner before passing the impugned order, hence, the impugned order is perse illegal and unsustainable in law and against the principles of natural justice.

(3.) ORIGINALLY, Periyasamy Nadar purchased, by different sale deeds, the entire area covered in TD 503 and on the death of Periyasamy Nadar, the land devolved upon his three sons Duraisamy, Alagumuthu and Theriappa Nadar and Survey Number was given as 148 of Padikkasuvaithanpatti Village, which was subsequently sub-divided as Survey No. 148/1, 2, 3 and 4. The sons of Periyasamy Nadar were given pattas and they were enjoying the property. The petitioners had purchased the land in Survey No. 148 from the legal heirs of Periyasamy Nadar under three sale deeds dated 10.8.1994, 10.8.1994 and 16.5.1996 and after purchase, the petitioner's properties were included in a single Patta No. 399.