SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Suresh Kumar, J.
A.Kaliyaperumal - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Villupuram and ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.14312 of 2018
Decided On : 29-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.Suresh
For the Respondent: M/s. Akila Rajendran Government Counsel

Headnote:

Property - Sale Deed - Possession - Landed property in S.No.at Village, and District is subject matter herein - According to petitioner, property originally belonged to one, from whom he purchased property by a registered Sale Deed in year - Pursuant to said sale, petitioner claimed to have been in possession and enjoyment of property and accordingly he applied for patta and that was also considered by Revenue Authorities, where they have given patta in Patta No. dated in favour of petitioner - According to petitioner, he came to know that, in year, patta had been issued in favour of private respondents 3 to 6 in respect of same property - Therefore, in order to cancel other patta issued in favour of third party, which according to petitioner has been issued without any notice to petitioner, he has given a representation dated to respondents to conduct an enquiry and cancel patta issued in favour of private respondents in Patta No. and since said representation has not been considered, petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with aforesaid prayer – Held, Court is not impressed with said submission made by learned counsel for petitioner - No doubt, before passing any order changing the patta by way of mutation in the revenue records by deleting or inducting any name in patta, certainly notice should have been given to person in whose name patta originally stood - Even on date when patta was mutated in favour of private respondents 24 years have gone by after passing of Civil Court decree as well as execution of sale deed in favour of private respondents - Position cannot be erased easily by petitioner and therefore, even if notice had been given by Tahsildar before issuance of patta in favour of private respondents, position would not have been changed and therefore theory of empty formality can very well be invoked in this case and can be pressed into service - Non issuance of notice to petitioner before issuing patta dated in favour of private respondents, cannot be fatal to said proceedings dated and therefore, on that ground petitioner cannot successfully challenge issuance of patta in favour of private respondents - Writ petition dismissed.

ORDER :

The prayer sought for herein is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property in Survey No.260/1- 42.50 acres at Sendhanur Village, Villupuram Taluk by considering the representation given by the petitioner dated 5.5.2018.

2. The landed property in S.No.260/1 at Sendhanur Village, Villupuram Taluk and District is the subject matter herein. According to the petitioner, the property originally belonged to one Poorani Ammal, from whom he purchased the property by a registered Sale Deed in the year 1983. Pursuant to the said sale, the petitioner claimed to have been in possession and enjoyment of the property and accordingly he applied for patta and that was also considered by the Revenue Authorities, where they have given patta in Patta No.75 dated 15.02.2015 in favour of the petitioner.

3. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, he came to know that, in the year 2018, patta had been issued in favour of the private respondents 3 to 6 in respect of the same property on 14.04.2018. Therefore, in order to cancel the other patta issued in favour of the third party, which according to the petitioner has been issued without any notice to the petitioner, he has given a representation dated 05.05.2018 to the respondents to conduct an enquiry and cancel the patta issued in favour of the private respondents in Patta No.679 dated 14.04.2018 and since the said representation has not been considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

4. Heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, the landed property in question has been purchased by the petitioner through a valid sale deed dated 21.09.1983. It has been registered as a document in the concerned Registrar Office and by virtue of the sale deed, the petitioner had become the owner of the property and had been in possession and enjoyment of the property all along.

5. Though subsequently patta also has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 15.02.2015, of late the petitioner came to know in the year 2018 only that, patta issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on 14.04.2018 and it has been re-issued in favour of the private respondents ie., respondents 3 to 6 herein. Therefore, in order to cancel the same, representation though was given by the petitioner on 05.05.2018, the said representation since was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner had no other option except to file the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer and hence the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks such issuance of a writ of Mandamus as prayed for.

6. However Ms.Akila Rajendran, learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents has relied upon the following averments made in the counter affidavit.

    “5. It is submitted that the Respondent deny the allegations made by the petitioner in his affidavit. The fact the case is one Mrs.Unnamalai, W/o.Mr.Kothandapani sold the property to an extent of Acre, 42 Cents comprised in S.No.260 to and in favour of Mrs.Poorani Ammal @ Unnamalai, W/o.Mr.Pandurangan. The said Document was executed to the value of Rs.7,000/- and the same was registered as Document No.1473 of 1982 before the Joint-1, SRO, Villupuram. On the very same day another one Agreement was executed between the same parties and the said Agreement was also registered as Document No.1474 of 1982. As per the said Agreement, the said Mrs.Unnamalai has returned Rs.100/- to Poorani Ammal and balance a sum of Rs.6,900/- will be paid within a period from 17.10.1987 to 16.10.1989, the said Unnamalai comply the said condition pursuant to that the Poorani Ammal has to give back the property to Unnamalai. Thereafter, the said Unnamalai was died on 12.11.1985. In the meanwhile Mr.Kaliyaperumal, petitioner herein has purchased the said property from Mrs.Poorani Ammal.

6.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top