Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.Sounthar, J
M/s. Kalasalingam Academy Of Research and Education, Represented Through its Registrar – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar – Respondent
W.P.(MD)Nos.2176 and 21580 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.J.Barathan for Mr.T.Sivakumar, Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Gangai Amaran
For the Respondents:Mrs.K.Malathi, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3, Mr.B.Karuppasamy for R4 to R6, Mr.M.Gangatharan, Govt. Advocate
The court upheld the validity of an enquiry notice regarding property title disputes, affirming that objections on standing and delay can be raised during such inquiries.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari - Enquiry notice issued by revenue authorities seeking cancellation of patta - Petitioners challenged the locus standi of the sixth respondent - The issues included the validity of mutation based on disputes pending in civil court and the second respondent's discretion to entertain the cancellation request. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 15)
(B) Civil Procedure - Doctrine of Lis Pendens - Petitioners argued that transactions occurred during the pendency of a civil suit thereby affecting their rights over the property. (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners question an enquiry notice for cancellation of issued patta, asserting that the opposing party lacks standing, and various rights concerning titles are under dispute in civil litigation.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the petitioners may present their objections at the enquiry, with no existing restraints barring the inquiry process.
Issues: The primary issues discerned are the standing of the sixth respondent, delayed applications without condoning petitions, and the pending title disputes requiring resolution in civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court asserted that all objections regarding standing and delay could be raised before the second respondent and determined that the applicants’ request for mutation was valid due to no interim stay against them, allowing revenue officials to consider the application based on merits.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to appeal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and transaction history of disputed properties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 2. argument regarding standing and delay in property disputes. (Para 8) |
| 3. court's examination of locus standi and the validity of inquiry. (Para 9 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. the right to challenge decisions and procedures in administrative inquiries. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. final ruling on dismissal of petitions with provision for objections. (Para 15) |
COMMON ORDER
W.P.(MD)No.2176 of 2025 is filed challenging the enquiry notice issued by the second respondent calling the petitioners for enquiry in an application filed by the 6th respondent seeking cancellation of patta issued in the name of petitioners 2 and 3.
2. W.P.(MD)No.21580 of 2025 is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court by considering the petitioner's representation dated 28.06.2025.
3. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are connected with each other, both the Writ Petitions are taken up together for hearing.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in W.P.(MD)No.2176 of 2025.
5. The subject properties situated in S.Nos.721/3, 722/1B, 975/2 and 975/3A in Sevalur Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District were originally belonged to the respondents 4 and 5 under two registered documents dated 29.04.1999 and 30.04.1999. They executed a General Power of attorney on 03.02.2005 in favour of one Karuppiah empowering him to deal with the subject properties. The power agent on behalf of his principals had executed a registered sale deed on 04.02.2005 in favour of one Sumathi, she in turn sold the subject properties in favour of Chitra under two registered sale deeds dated 04.12.2006 and 03.08.2008. The said Chitra sold the subject properties to one Perumal Samy under a registered sale deed dated 03.11.2010. The petitioners 2 and 3 purchased the subject properties from the said Perumal Samy under a registered sale deed dated 11.07.2016. After purchase, the revenue records got mutated in the name of petitioners 2 and 3. Subsequently, the petitioners 2 and 3 leased out the subject properties in favour of the first petitioner under registered lease deed dated 02.07.2018. The respondents 4 and 5 appeared to have cancelled the general power of attorney dated 03.02.2005, by cancellation deed dated 05.01.2009. But even prior to the said cancellation, properties were conveyed in favour of Sumathi and she in turn sold it to Chitra.
6. It is also seen from the averments found in the affidavit, respondents 4 and 5 filed a suit in O.S.No.146 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar against their power agent Karuppiah and the purchasers of the properties viz., Sumathi, Chitra and others, seeking declaration that the subject properties absolutely belonged to them and for consequential relief of recovery of possession. They also sought for cancellation of the sale deed dated 04.02.2005 in favour of Sumathi and sale deeds dated 04.12.2006 and 03.08.2008 in favour of Chitra apart from other prayers. The said suit had been decreed in favour of respondents 4 and 5 on 14.02.2018. Challenging the same, the power agent Karuppiah and one of the purchasers Sumathi have filed an appeal in A.S.No.15 of 2019 on the file of Sub Court, Virudhunagar and the same is pending. Since the petitioners were not added as a party in the suit filed by respondents 4 and 5, independently the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 2019 on the file of Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District seeking declaration that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.146 of 2009 was invalid. The petitioners also sought for a declaration that the subject properties belonged to petitioners 2 and 3 and for consequential injunction. The said suit was filed by the petitioners against respondents 4 and 5, their power agent Karuppiah, purchasers Sumathi, Chitra
