V. BOOVARAGHAMOORTHY Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Mr.V.Boovaraghamoorthy challenging the impugned notice dated 5.6.2013 issued in Na.Ka.No.A2/18838/12 by the first respondent-District Revenue Officer, Villupuram inter alia, among other grounds, that the suit property covered in S.Nos.21/1 and 21/2, having an extent of 1.07 acres in Sakkarapuram Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District, after being sold in the public auction sale conducted on 23.12.87 by the learned District Munsif, Gingee in E.P.No.423 of 1984 in favour of the petitioner's father Mr.Venkatasubba Reddiar and after the issuance of the sale certificate in his favour, the said property became the property of the petitioner's father, as he was the successful bidder, however, subsequently, when the second respondent filed a petition in E.A.No.332 of 1988 in E.P.No.423 of 1984 to set aside the auction sale conducted in favour of the petitioner's father, the said petition also came to be dismissed by order dated 18.12.90 and thereupon, as mentioned above, the auction sale was also confirmed and the sale certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner's father and finally the same was also registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Gingee in Document Ledger No.14 of 1992 on 29.1.92. Even as against the dismissal of E.A.No.332 of 1988, when the second respondent again filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.21 of 1992 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, the same also was dismissed on 18.8.95 and thereafter, no further appeal was filed, as a result, the entire matter became final and concluded. Thereafter, the petitioner's father took all steps to complete the mutation of the revenue records in his favour and finally the name of the petitioner's father was also entered in all the revenue records like patta, chitta, adangal and he had been paying the property tax to the said property. While so, it was pleaded, the second respondent has no basis to file any petition under the Right to Information Act for impractical and indiscriminate demands for disclosure of sundry information.

(2.) Adding further, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the second respondent, who had borrowed loan from one Govinda Reddiar of Pondicherry, became a defaulter and finally when the said Govinda Reddiar filed a suit for recovery in O.S.No.393 of 1970 before the District Munsif Court, Pondicherry, the same was also decreed as prayed for. Since the second respondent failed to satisfy the decree passed in O.S.No.393 of 1970, for execution of the decree, when E.P.No.423 of 1984 was filed, the property in question, originally belonging to the second respondent, was sold in the public auction in the year 1987, in which the petitioner's father Mr.Venkatasubba Reddiar became the successful bidder and, as mentioned above, the sale certificate was also issued in his favour and thereafter patta, chitta and adangal were also issued, as a result, the petitioner's father has become the legal owner.

(3.) Further, in the year 2011, the petitioner's father settled the above said property in favour of the petitioner by a registered settlement deed dated 19.12.2011 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Gingee and by virtue of the settlement deed, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Again, one another mutation of the revenue records had taken place in favour of the petitioner and all the patta, chitta and adangal were transferred in his name from that of his father. Therefore, the second respondent ought not to have filed any application under the Right to Information Act before the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar/Public Information Officer seeking certain information with regard to the property when he had lost the said property in the public auction held on 23.12.87, in which the petitioner's father became the successful bidder and subsequently the petitioner also became its owner. Although the application filed by the second respondent was properly considered by the Public Information Officer by furnishing the information sought for by him, aggrieved by the information given by the Public Information Officer, the second respondent again filed an appeal before the first respondent herein, who has also disposed off the said appeal. Even as against that, the second respondent filed second appeals before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission in Case Nos.49745/Visaranai/A/2012 and 22371/VisaranaiA/2012. When the notices were issued, the petitioner and his father had appeared for an enquiry on 13.5.2013 afternoon and also submitted all the relevant documents to establish the title and possession of the property. That apart, the first respondent has also filed a report before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission on 21.5.2013. In the said report, although the first respondent stated that the civil suits are pending and the name transfer can be done only after disposal of the civil cases, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, without knowing the fact that the issue is seized by the civil court, wrongly issued notices calling for a meeting of the District Revenue Officer, the Tahsildar, the Deputy Tahsildar, the land Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer on 24.7.2013. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent has issued the impugned notice informing the petitioner that he is going to take up the inspection and measurement of the suit property, even though no order was passed by the Information Commission to that effect. The said action initiated by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and the notice issued by the first respondent calling for the presence of the petitioner for the inspection and measurement of the suit property is totally uncalled for. The reason being that when the suit property covered in S.Nos.21/1 and 21/2 to an extent of 1.07 acres, originally belonging to the second respondent, was already sold in the public auction in the year 1987 in favour of the petitioner's father and that the petitioner had become the owner of the property subsequently, the Information Commission ought not to have entertained the appeal mechanically without application of mind, as there is no transparency or accountability involved, more so, the first respondent also should not have issued the present impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to be present for inspection and measurement of the suit property, as such action initiated by the first respondent to comply with the order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission on 21.5.2013 is running contrary to the settled judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.393 of 1970 by the learned District Munsif, Pondicherry dated 11.9.70; one another order passed in E.P.No.423 of 1984 dated 23.12.87; the third order passed in E.A.No.332 of 1988 dated 18.12.90; the fourth order passed in C.M.A.No.21 of 1992 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam dated 18.8.85 and the fifth judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.44 of 1991 by the learned District Munsif, Gingee dated 14.10.2011. In view of the above, the impugned notice issued by the first respondent is liable to be set aside by allowing the writ petition.