V K SUBRAMANIAM Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER TIRUVALLUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have come forward with this petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 30.05.2005 made in Na.Ka.25528/04/B3 along with the order of the second respondent dated 19.05.2004 made in Na.Ka.584/2004/A2 with a prayer to quash the same.

(2.) THE factual matrix of this case is as follows: 2.1. THE first petitioner purchased an extent of 12 cents of vacant land comprised in S.No.143 of No.61, Kotattur Village formerly Saidapet Taluk and Chengalpattu District from one Radha Naicker and his wife Mariammal under Sale Deed dated 02.05.1980 registered as Document No.1836/1980 at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ambattur. THE wife of the first petitioner namely Smt.Jayalakshmi also purchased 11 cents of land from same Radha Naicker and his wife under Sale Deed dated 02.05.1980 registered as Document No.1837/1980. THEy have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the above said total 23 cents of land ever since from the date of purchase. 2.2. THE Deputy Tahsildhar, Saidapet originally granted patta No.2714 in favour of the wife of the first petitioner on 26.11.1987 for the portion purchased by her and the said portion was subdivided and S.No.143/1B had been assigned for the same. Likewise, the Deputy Tahsildhar, Saidapet granted patta No.2713 in favour of the first petitioner for the extent of 12 cents purchased by the first petitioner and the said land had been subdivided and a separate S.No.143/1C had been assigned. Subsequently, after re-survey in 1994, the Deputy Tahsildhar, Ambattur granted fresh patta bearing Nos.4790 and 4791 on 24.08.1994 in favour of the first petitioner's wife and himself respectively with modification of S.Nos. as 143/2C and 143/2E respectively. 2.3. THE wife of the first petitioner died on 5.10.2000 leaving behind the first petitioner and the petitioners 2 and 3 as her legal heirs and all the three succeeded to the extent of 11 cents belonging to the wife of the first petitioner. THErefore, the entire extent of 23 cents mentioned above belonged to the petitioners family. THE Special Tahsildhar, Ambattur had granted fresh patta after Town Survey and assigned T.S.No.25 for the entire extent of 23 cents purchased by the first petitioner and his wife as per the Town Survey Land Register. THErefore, the petitioners are the absolute owners of the entire extent of 23 cents comprised formerly in S.No.143/2C and 143/2E and now in T.S.No.25 of Korattur Village. 2.4. An extent of 2.09 acres comprised in S.No.143 of Korattur Village, originally belonged to Seeyala Naicker, Damodara Naicker and Singara Naicker sons of Egappa Naicker and they have purchased the same from one Govindasamy Naicker under Sale Deed dated 16.06.1926 registered as Document No.776/1926 at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Sembium. THE said Seeyala Naicker had three sons namely Rajabather Naicker @ Kannan, Rajabather @ Jayaraman and Radha Naicker while Sri Damodara Naicker had two sons namely, Kannappa Naicker and Gangadhara Naicker. Singara Naicker had only daughter by name Smt.Muniammal (fourth respondent). On 29.04.1976, there was family arrangement among the legal heirs of Seeyala Naicker, Damodara Naicker and Singara Naicker. However, the said family arrangement was not acted upon and never given effect to. However, on the basis of rearrangement among the co-owners in which Smt.Muniammal (fourth respondent), the sole heir of the Singara Naicker got her portion in the north of the said property and that she sold her entire share of land comprised in S.No.143 on 26.11.1979. It is, therefore, apparent that the fourth respondent had sold her entire land on 26.11.1979 itself and that she ceased to have any interest in the land comprised in S.No.143 long before the first petitioner and his wife purchased their lands from one of the other partners, namely, Radha Naicker. 2.5. An extent of 1.08 acres out of the total extent of 2.09 acres mentioned above had been acquired on the western side for the formation of ring road under World Bank Scheme. In the notification issued under Section 4(1) and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the names of all the persons interested in the said lands had been mentioned obviously based upon the entries in the revenue records and the information obtained thereon. Though the extent of the lands proposed to be acquired for road formation had been segregated as S.No.143/1, the specific extent sought to be acquired from the individual owners were not given and there is no evidence to show that the remaining portion was assigned S.No.143/2 since even after acquisition, it was mentioned only as 143/1A, 1B, 1C etc. Even though the first petitioner and his wife's name had been mentioned in the said notification, there was no dispute that the land sought to be acquired is situate on the western side and that the land belonging to the petitioners was lying on the eastern side which did not come under acquisition. 2.6. Subsequently, the fourth respondent filed a petition before the Tahsildhar, Ambattur, the third respondent herein, for cancellation of patta granted in favour of the first petitioner and his wife on 09.01.2004. In the said petition, the fourth respondent had made a statement that she had been in possession and enjoyment of the property got by her in partition and that patta had been granted wrongly to the first petitioner and his wife and contrary to the alleged petition. It appears that the said Tahsildhar had dismissed the said petition in limine in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1229/2004/C3 dated 05.02.2004. THEreafter, the fourth respondent appeared to have filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, the 2nd respondent herein for the same relief of cancellation of patta granted in favour of the first petitioner and his wife. THE Revenue Divisional Officer did not treat the said petition filed by the fourth respondent as appeal, but deal with it only as Original Petition and passed an order in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.584/2004/A2 dated 19.05.2004 allowing the said petition and cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and his wife and further directing restoration of the same to its original position. THEreafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before the first respondent in view of the fact that the second respondent treated the appeal as Original Petition. But the first respondent treated the said appeal as Revision Petition and disposed of the same by its proceedings Rc.No.25528/04/B3 dated 30.05.2005 directing the second respondent to reconsider the matter by spot inspection of the land in question, verification of the records and pass an order afresh. Being aggrieved against the above said orders, the petitioners have come forward with this petition with the above said prayer.

(3.) ON a perusal of the copy of certain original records produced before this Court, this Court has found that during the pendency of this writ petition and in spite of granting the interim relief of stay by this Court by the order dated 02.01.2006, the third respondent has transferred the patta in favour of one Elumalai. In view of the same, this Court passed an order dated 23.12.2010 to implead the said Elumalai as the fifth respondent by the above said suo-motu order of this Court and also directed the third respondent herein to file an affidavit explaining under what circumstances the patta was transferred in favour of the fifth respondent and also to show cause why this Court should not initiate contempt proceedings against him. But, till date, the third respondent has not filed any affidavit explaining the circumstances under which he has passed the order of granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent.