Parties invoking extraordinary jurisdiction must disclose all relevant facts; suppression of material facts constitutes an abuse of process and may lead to dismissal of the petition.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners have moved this Writ Petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in a proceeding bearing No.5585/DRO/RD/FRAUDULENT/REG/2022/575 dated 28.03.2022.

2. The petitioners who have compromised the dispute with the 3rd respondent and after receiving a sum of over Rs.1,00,00,000/- from her are time and again instituting proceedings totally suppressing the compromise that has been entered into between the petitioners and rd the 3 respondent and have approached this Court suppressing all these facts.

3. To demonstrate the above conduct of the petitioners, the brief facts of the case are hereinbelow set out.

Facts of the case:-

(i) Petitioner's contention:-

4. The petitioners would submit that one Kumar S/o of Marimuthu was the owner and in enjoyment of the larger extent of the property comprised in RS.Nos.154 and 155/2, Villianur Revenue Village, Villianur Puducherry. The property originally belonged to one Abdul Aziz Khan Saibu who had sold the property to one Jayaraman under a registered French Sale Deed vide document no.613, R.V.83/1944 dated 22.04.1944. The said Jayaraman had in turn sold the aforesaid property to one Marimuthu under a registered sale deed dated 21.12.1956. Marimuthu in turn had executed a Will in favour of his son Kumar which was registered as Document No.18/1994 dated 21.01.1994.

5. It is also the case of the petitioners that the said Kumar was granted patta in respect of this property in patta no.28 by the Settlement Officer-II, Director of Survey by proceedings dated 18.10.2010 and he has been in the possession and enjoyment of the said property without any disturbance.

6. The petitioners had thereafter purchased the property from the said Kumar after verifying the title deeds and patta under a registered sale deed dated 17.10.2011. Under this deed the said Kumar had conveyed an extent of 01.79.50 hectares in R.S.No.154. He had also executed a sale deed in respect of an extent of 01.54.50 hectares in st RS.No.155/2 in favour of the 1 petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 13.10.2011. Ever since the date of the purchase the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the property.

7. While so, according to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent had nd lodged a complaint with the 2 respondent stating that these documents have been fraudulently registered as she was the owner of the property. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted based on the nd complaint and the petitioners had appeared before the 2nd respondent and submitted all the documents relating to the aforesaid property. However, by the impugned proceedings dated 28.03.2022, the 2 respondent had cancelled the documents executed in favour of the petitioners bearing Document Nos.5826 of 2011 and 5827 of 2011. The documents were cancelled on the basis of a circular issued by the Government of Puducherry under Circular No.4225/REGN/A3/DRO/2011 dated 05.08.2021.

8. The petitioners’ contention is that against the order of the 2nd st st respondent they had preferred an appeal to the 1 respondent. The 1 respondent by his proceedings dated 27.11.2023 had closed the appeal filed by the petitioners without giving any reason.

9. It is also stated by the petitioners that thereafter the 2nd respondent had cancelled another document pertaining to some other party who had filed W.P.No.10124 of 2024 and by order dated 17.07.2023 this Court had quashed the proceedings of the 2nd respondent and had also set aside the circular dated 05.08.2021. Therefore, the petitioners would submit that the order that is impugned in the present Writ Petition has to be set aside as well.

(ii) 3rd Respondent's contention

10. The 3rd respondent had filed a detailed counter refuting the allegations contained in the Writ Petition and setting out in detail the rd suppression on the part of the petitioners herein. The 3 respondent would submit that the premise on which the Writ Petition has been nd filed is that the sale deeds have been cancelled by the