TAHSILDAR AMINJIKARAI TALUK CHENNAI Vs. A. V. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the 4th Defendant to reject the plaint in C.S.No.117 of 2019 as barred by law and devoid of any cause of action.

(2.) (A) It is stated in the application that the plaintiff has filed various writ petitions with regard to the suit property and finally one of the writ petitions was disposed of on 24.09.2000 in W.P.No.17159 of 2000. The above writ petition this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to inspect the land on 03.11.2000 and submit a report as to the correct location and classification of the property in dispute. In the above writ petition, Report has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer indicating that suit land currently comprised in T.S.No.17 in Block No.33 of Koyambedu Village, which was previously correlated to the Old Survey No.141/2. However, the present T.S.No.17 in Block No.33 of Koyambedu Village had been classified as Natham Poromboke as per the current classification. The above Writ Petition was disposed of on 05.12.2000. Based on the above Writ Petition, another Writ Petition also filed in W.P.No.21665 of 2012 seeking a Mandamus directing the Applicant and 2 nd to 4 th Respondents to effect suitable corrections in revenue records. In the meanwhile 3 rd and 4 th Respondents issued notice to the 1 st Respondent to remove the encroachment. The same was challenged in another Writ Petition No.10515 of 2015. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 09.01.2017 directing the authorities to demarcate the boundaries of the land of first respondent and proceed in accordance with law. In view of the same W.P.No.21665 of 2012 also came to be disposed.

(3.) Denying the entire allegations the 1 st Respondent/Plaintiff filed his counter stating that the original report by the Revenue Divisional Officer before the Court on 17.11.2000 indicate that suit land is currently comprised in T.S.No.17 Block No.33 Koyambedu Village which previously co-related to Old Survey No.141/2 and further reported that prior to the town survey the said land was registered in the 1 st respondent's name as per Patta No.1279. In fact, the Revenue authorities have consistently maintained the same stand in all other proceedings before the writ court. The Revenue Divisional Officer's statement has not been challenged. It has to be tested only after conducting elaborate trial. It is further stated that the Road referred in the sale deed was created only in the year 1982 for the first time to provide the purchaser easementary right of ingress and egress from Poonamallee High Road to reach his property. The ownership over the said common road has always been retained by the respondent has never vested in the hands of the Government officials nor was there any acquisition proceedings to acquire the said lands in manner known to law. It is further contended that the respondent seeking for declaration of title over an extent of 23 1/2 cents of the land comprised in S.No.141/2 and not for entire survey number. The classification itself disputed by the plaintiff. Therefore all the facts has to be decided only in the trial. Only for the first time the Writ Court questioned the title over the suit property and held in the negative, though there was no declaration sought for in the said writ petition that too in a summary manner without letting in any oral evidence. Since two orders of the court remain in operation, both contrary to each other, the present suit has been filed for declaration of title before a court. Further it is his contention that to find out the allegation the plaint has to be seen and submitted that the issues, disputed facts has to be decided only in the suit. Hence, prayed for dismissal fo the application.