Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(Mad) 4809

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
M/s. GMMCO Limited, rep.by its Senior Vice President
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Chief Secretary & Others
Writ Petition No.20518 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2011
Decided On :Decided on : 20-12-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner - Sathish Parasaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents - R1 to R6, R8, R10 & R11 -A. Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General assisted by V. Jayaprakashnarayanan, Additional Government Pleader, R7 - R. Thiagarajan, Sr. Counsel for V. Rama Jegadeesan, R9 - C. Mohan for M/s. King & Patridge, R1 - K. Senthilkumar, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputed facts cannot be decided in a writ petition, and parties should approach the appropriate forum, particularly the Civil Court, to establish their rights in case of a title dispute.

Headnote:
Patta Transfer - Land Dispute - Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 - Section 10(3)(a) - G.O.Ms.No.43 Planning Development and Special Initiative Department, dated 2.2.2011 - The court discussed the legal provisions under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, and the principles of natural justice. It highlighted the need for parties to establish their right before the Civil Court in case of a title dispute. The court set aside the orders passed by the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer, emphasizing that the disputed facts cannot be decided in a writ petition.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Group of Company, sought to quash the order to cancel the patta and transfer the patta in its name for the purchased property. The petitioner claimed continuous possession and ownership rights, while the respondents contended that the land was poromboke land vested with the Government.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the orders to cancel the patta were preemptive and violated the principles of natural justice. It emphasized that the title dispute should be resolved in the Civil Court and set aside the orders passed by the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership and possession of the land, the validity of the patta, and the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to decide title disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disputed facts cannot be decided in a writ petition and parties should approach the appropriate forum, emphasizing the need for establishing rights before the Civil Court in case of a title dispute.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, setting aside the orders passed by the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer. The court emphasized that the observations made in the order should not be construed as accepting the case of the petitioner/contesting respondents in any future proceedings.

Judgment :-

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 13.1.2011 passed by the 5th respondent/The District Collector, Kancheepuram District and the consequential order of the 11th respondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram Division, Kancheepuram District dated 16.8.2011 and direct the respondents to act pursuant to the petitioners application for patta transfer dated 31.12.2008.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as per the pleadings of the petitioner are as follows:

(a) Petitioner is a Group of Company, involved in manufacturing activities including automobile and components, engineering products, building products, cement, castings, electrical pans, lighting products, etc., and it has turnover in excess of US$ 1.16 billions with human resources comprising of over 22,000 employees worldwide.

(b) It is claimed in the affidavit that the petitioner purchased property measuring total extent of 67.14 grounds in R.S.NO.512, Contonment of St.Thomas Mount from M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited/12th respondent herein, through four different sale deeds vide Document Nos.341/2006 dated 27.2.2006; 1655/2006 dated 7.8.2006; 742/2007 dated 30.7.2007; and 1372/2010 dated 31.8.2010, all registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Saidapet. On 31.12.2008 the petitioner made two applications for transferring patta in its name. It also purchased another extent of property being land and building, measuring an extent of 16.99 grounds in R.S.No.512 (part), St.Thomas Mount contonment, Chennai through sale deed dated 31.8.2010 registered as Document No.1732/2010.

(c) Due to traffic volumes on the roads of Chennai, the Government of Tamil Nadu announced a project by name "Chennai Metro Rail" and the Government has created a special purpose vehicle implementing Chennai Metro Rail Project (CMRP). The Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL)/7th respondent herein was incorporated on 3.12.2007 under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a joint venture of Government of India and Government of Tamil Nadu with equal equity holdings. The above project was proposed to be implemented by acquiring lands from land owners through negotiations and upon negotiations failing, to invoke the appropriate acquisition laws to acquire the said lands.

(d) CMRL issued a letter on 25.11.2008 to the petitioner stating that it intends to procure lands required for Chennai Metro Rail Project through negotiations from willing owners and the petitioner was asked to furnish documents of title pertaining to the petitioners property for determining the value. Petitioner furnished the said documents with a covering letter on 2.2.2009, which was acknowledged by the CMRL on 3.2.2009. The petitioner was willing to negotiate and transfer the required lands in favour of the 7th respondent (CMRL) on paying proper market value.

(e) The land required for Chennai Metro Rail Project is an extent of 2477.5 sq.mtrs in S.No.512 G.S.T.Road, out of the total extent of 3 acres and 31,051 sq.ft. According to the petitioner it is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the subject lands. Before its purchase the land was owned by the M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited. M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited purchased the property from M/s.Blackwood Hodge (India) Private Limited through a sale deed dated 21.3.1967 registered as document No.1463/1967 and the said M/s.Blackwood Hodge (India) Private Limited purchased the property from one Hakim Abdul Sattar Khan through sale deed dated 23.8.1957 registered as Document No.2286/1957 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Saidapet.

(f) According to the petitioner, the Hindustan Motors Limited applied for transfer of patta and obtained patta in their name bearing patta No.907 dated 26.2.1977, which was issued by the additional Head Quarters Tahsildar, Saidapet. It is also claimed in the affidavit that as per the records of Contonment Board, the property is in possession of the petitioner and its predecessors in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(Mad) 4809

High Court of Judicature at MadrasTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMARM/s. GMMCO Limited, rep.by its Senior Vice PresidentVersusThe Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Chief Secretary & OthersWrit Petition No.20518 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2011Decided On :Decided on : 20-12-2011

The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputed facts cannot be decided in a writ petition, and parties should approach the appropriate forum, particularly the Civil Court, to establish their rights in case of a title dispute.