The court reaffirmed that administrative orders must respect established legal rights confirmed by judicial proceedings, quashing the directive for civil dispute adjudication.

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated 27.8.2024 issued by the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the official respondents to restore the patta in the name of one Mrs.Padmini Chandrasekaran with respect to the property bearing block No.55, New S.No.287, Old S.No.170/2 measuring 0.61 cents situated at Thiruvanmiyur Village, Velacherry Taluk, Chennai District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows :

(i) The petitioner and one Mr.Elango are the absolute owners of the subject property. It was purchased vide sale deed dated 29.12.2006 registered as doc.No.10030 of 2006 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, South Chennai, Saidapet. An attempt was made to illegally grab the subject property on the strength of a Will dated 20.5.1980, which was allegedly executed by the said late Mrs.Padmini Chandrasekaran bequeathing the subject property in favour of the 8th respondent trust.

(ii) Thereafter, the original petition in O.P.No.382 of 2008 was filed by the 8th respondent trust represented by the fourth respondent, claiming to be the sole trustee, before this Court for the grant of probate based on the Will dated 20.5.1980. On coming to know of the same, one of the trustees of the 8th respondent trust - Dr.H.B.N.Shetty filed a caveat and objected for the grant of probate. In view of the same, the said original petition was converted into a suit in T.O.S.No.42 of 2008.

(iii) The said Dr.H.B.N.Shetty also filed A.No.2289 of 2012 seeking to dismiss the said suit. The said application was allowed on 31.7.2012 thereby the said suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit, the 8th respondent trust represented by the fourth respondent filed an appeal in O.S.A.No.91 of 2013 before this Court and it was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn by judgment dated 06.3.2017. That being so, the fourth respondent executed a settlement deed dated 02.11.2009 registered as doc.No.5452 of 2009 on the file of the Joint I Sub-Registrar, South Chennai in favour of his wife - the fifth respondent as if the probate has been granted for the Will dated 20.5.1980. On the strength of the said settlement deed dated 02.11.2009, the patta was also issued in her favour and necessary entries were made in the permanent land register by the third respondent.

(iv) The petitioner came to know about the same when, on 27.3.2023, a large number of persons attempted to trespass into the subject property claiming that the patta was issued in favour of the fifth respondent. He also filed an appeal dated 05.4.2023 before the second respondent under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act to cancel the patta issued in favour of the fifth respondent. However, the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 02.12.2023, rejected the same. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the second respondent, a revision dated 26.12.2023 was filed by the petitioner before the first respondent, who passed the impugned order dated 27.8.2024 directing the parties to agitate their dispute before the competent Civil Court and refused to cancel the patta issued in favour of the fifth respondent. Aggrieved by that, the above writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4