Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
Pee & Dee Lands Holdings Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 2680 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 28-09-2016
For the Petitioner: V. Ragavachari
For the Respondents: R. Govindasamy, B. Rajkumar Ashok Singh, G. Sumithra assisted by E. Narayanan, S.R. Raghunathan
Headnote:
Patta - Disputed Title - Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act - [MAIN LEGAL POINT]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the cancellation of the patta granted in its favor, claiming possession and title to the property. The respondents assert conflicting claims to the same property, alleging fabrication of documents and illegal patta issuance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed title and should have directed the parties to approach the civil forum. The court set aside the cancellation of the patta and restored it in favor of the petitioner, while allowing the respondents to seek remedy in the civil court.
Issues: Disputed title and possession, jurisdiction of the first respondent, legality of patta issuance, fabrication of documents, and the need for civil adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases of disputed title, parties should seek remedy in the civil court, and the revenue authority lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes. The court set aside the cancellation of the patta and restored it in favor of the petitioner, while allowing the respondents to seek remedy in the civil court.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the first respondent was set aside, and the patta granted in favor of the petitioner was restored. The private respondents were allowed to approach the competent civil forum to work out their remedy.
1. The petitioner/Private Limited Company challenges the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 07.01.2013, in and by which, the patta granted in favour of the petitioner in C.A. No. 58/2012, dated 13.01.2012, has been cancelled and further direction was issued to restore the same to it's original entry and the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk - the second respondent herein, was directed to carry out the changes in terms of the said order.
2. The petitioner - the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company, in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, would aver that it is a well known Company and has been in the business of realtors-promotion and development for several decades and it has earned a name and reputation for itself in selling and promoting projects which have impeccable title and workmanship. The petitioner Company, during the course of business, had purchased the properties situated at 71/1, L.B. Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai, after getting legal opinion and on scrutinising the title deeds.
3. The petitioner would further aver that the said property stood in the name of one Dr. Kuppusamy Naicker, who had purchased it in a Court Auction Sale conducted by the Civil Court, Poonamallee, in the year 1891 and more than a century, it has been in possession and enjoyment of his family and descendants. The petitioner had approached the legal representatives of Dr. Kuppusamy Naicker's sons, namely, M.K. Kanappa Naicker and M.K. Ramadass Naicker and their family and they have alienated the said property in favour of the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed in Document No. 10756/2011, dated 07.10.2011, registered on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Saidapet, Chennai.
4. The petitioner claims that pursuant to the execution of the said sale deed, it also took possession and improved the property and on application, the revenue authorities also conducted an inspection and granted patta in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, it had spent a considerable amount for removing the shrubs and Velikathan trees.
5. The petitioner Company also faced interference at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tharamani Range, Chennai - 20; the Inspector of Police, J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai; Ahamed Ibrahim and Ragini Rajkumar and therefore, filed W.P. No. 15610 of 2012 and vide order dated 23.07.2012, this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter before the appropriate civil Court and further observed that it is entirely a private dispute between the two contending parties and therefore, the writ petition cannot be maintainable and dismissed the same.
6. According to the petitioner, it paid Rs.32 Crores to it's vendors and got the title conveyed in it's favour by virtue of the above said sale deed and it is also the subject matter of proceedings before the second respondent, who vide his proceedings dated 28.06.2012, had also observed that the petitioner Company is in possession of the said property. It is the claim of the petitioner that it was granted patta on 13.01.2012 after verification of the relevant records and on personal inspection and eversince the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the same and also made improvements on the said property and as such, it is having a right, title and possession.
7. The fourth respondent and four others as well as the third respondent had submitted the petitions to the first respondent claiming that they are in possession of the lands in question and without notice to them, patta has been illegally issued in favour of the petitioner and therefore, prayed for conducting an enquiry and issued the patta in their favour.
8. The petitioner would state that the second respondent called upon the petitioner to offer his explanation and the petitioner has submitted the detailed representations dated 21.09.2012 and 05.10.2012 respectively, to the first respondent as to how he derived r
