R. MANIKANDAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Al/419/2020 dtd. 13/9/2020 (signed on 13/9/2021) passed by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from proceeding further, in view of the law laid down in Vishwas footwear Co., case [(2011 (5) CTC 94 (DB)]

(2.) The property comprised in survey Nos. 184/1 and 185/1 admeasuring 60 cents situated at Madananthapuram Village, Alandur Taluk, Chennai owned by Nagabhoosnam. She executed unregistered sale deed dtd. 9/4/1984 in favour of the petitioner's mother. The said Nagabhoosnam died on 10/2/2011. The second respondent is being the son of the said Nagabhoosnam lodged complaint as against the petitioner'smother before the first respondent with regards to the cancellation of patta issue in her favour.

(3.) Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's mother had executed settlement deed in his favour on 26/6/2015 vide document No. 10259 of 2015. On the strength of the unregistered sale deed, patta was obtained on 13/6/2015. Thereafter, the petitioner executed power of attorney on 16/9/2015 in favuor of one, Kavitha Rani for applying layout plan approval before the CMDA. The petitioner also executed a gift deed on 19/9/2016 in favour of Corporation of Chennai for formation of roads and other public utilities. He further submitted that on receipt of the impugned notice from the first respondent, the petitioner went to the Office of the first respondent on 17/9/2021 and informed about the suit filed by him in OS.No.114 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur in respect of the subject property. When the said suit is very much pending between the petitioner and the second respondent, the first respondent has no power to entertain the complaint lodged by the second respondent for cancellation of patta issuedin favour of the petitioner. The first respondent cannot decide the title and as such he has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for cancellation of patta.