R. PERUMALSWAMY Vs. W.S. INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been directed against the order dated 30.8.2016 made in W.P.No.1453 of 2016.

(2.) The appellant herein is the sixth respondent in the writ petition. The first respondent herein is the writ petitioner. The first respondent Company was incorporated under the Companies Act as W.S. Insulators of India Ltd, to manufacture Porcelain Insulators for application in Electrical High Voltage Transmission and Distribution in the year 1961. In 1962, the Government acquired 46.06 acres of land in S.Nos.25/5A, 4F, 4A, 4D, 27, 25/2, 5B, 4G, 26, 25/4H, 70/1A1, 70/1A2, 73/2, 77, 25/4I, 28/2, 25/3A, 25/4E and 25/4C2 at Porur Village, Saidapet Taluk, the then Chengalpattu District, under the Land Acquisition after following due procedure under the Land Acquisition Central Act, 1894 and assigned it in favour of the first respondent by way of Assignment Deed dated 26.02.1964. On 17.4.1964, the company was issued patta for the lands assigned to them, by the Tahsildar. During Aug. 1964, the company availed loan from ICICI Bank, by depositing title deeds of the lands assigned to it. In 1987, the name of the company was changed to W.S.Industries (India) Ltd. On 12.9.2015, the appellant sent a legal notice to the first respondent claiming right over the property of an extent of 13.65 acres in S.Nos.70/1A1, 70/1A2, 73/2, 77 at Porur Village, said to have been purchased by his father and devolved on him after his father's demise, which was given to the first respondent on leave and license for a period of fifty years and calling upon the first respondent to hand over vacant possession of the same, since the lease period expired. But, the first respondent sent his reply dated 15.10.2015, denying the claim of the appellant. In the interregnum, the appellant submitted an application to the second respondent to rectify the mistakes in the revenue records, pursuant to which, the second respondent passed an order cancelling patta issued in favour of the first respondent in respect of the lands said to have been purchased by the appellant's father and directing to transfer it in the name of the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order of the second respondent, the first respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1453 of 2016.

(3.) Before the learned single Judge, the first respondent/writ petitioner contended that from the date on which the lands were assigned to them by the then Government in the year 1964, they were in possession of the land and they also obtained loan by mortgaging the properties and that the order of the second respondent, rectifying the alleged mistakes crept in and cancelling the sub-divisions in S.No.70 and ordering sub-divisions in S.No.70 and directing to register the same in the name of the sixth respondent and classifying the remaining extent of 0.02.5 hectares of lands in S.No.70 as burial ground, based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, was bad in law and sought to set aside the said order.