Dismissed

T.Jayaraman v. the Executive Engineer

Madras HC1 Aug 2017WP/7616/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order cancelling an electricity service connection. The Court found the petitioner guilty of fraud against the Sub-Registrar by inserting a forged page into a Sale Deed, holding the order legal and directing criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Exemplary costs of Rs.50,000 payable to Bala Gurukulam School; criminal complaint directed against the petitioner.

T.Jayaraman Vs the Executive Engineer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.08.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE.S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.No.7616 of 2004

¶7

T.Jayaraman .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Sholingur, Vellore District.
2. The Superintendent Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Vellore, Vellore District.
3. The Junior Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Panapakkam, Vellore District.
4. Dayalan
5. The Sub-Registrar,
Kaveripakkam, Vellore.
(Formerly SRO, Panapakkam) .. Respondents
(R5 suo motu impleaded as per order
dated 03.08.2017 in W.P.No.7616/2004)

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the 1st respondent with respect to the impugned order No.f/vz;/br/bgh-,/gh-nrh2f/M-y/gp-f/bk/3-gh/kh/kp/,/vz;/101-2004. dated 03.02.2004 passed by the 1st respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Margabandhu For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.Varun Kumar For 4th Respondent : Mr.P.Krishnan

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking to

¶14

quash the impugned order dated 03.02.2004 passed by the 1^st respondent/Electricity Board.

¶15

According to the petitioner, he purchased 1/3^rd share of 2 cents of common land, well, pumpset shed, 1/3^rd share in 5 H.P. Pumpset in Survey No.141 at Nedumbuli Village, Panapakkam Post, Arakkonam Taluk from Kasim Sahib and his sons under a registered Sale Deed, dated 27.10.1985. He mortgaged the said property under a registered Mortgage Deed dated 10.03.1987 in favour of one Jayapal. The remaining 2/3^rd share in the Well and 5 H.P. Pumpset were purchased by the petitioner's father Thiruvengadam and his brother, respectively and that the entire pumpset belongs to his family.

¶16

It is the further case of the petitioner that the original Service

¶17

Connection No.101 was in the name of Yacoob Sahib and after the purchase

¶18

of the properties, the petitioner applied for transfer of service connection in

¶19

his name and the respondent/Electricity Board effected transfer of service connection No.101 in the petitioner's name by an order dated 04.03.1993

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

¶22

and since then, electricity bill in respect of the said property was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that his father and his brother were in absolute ownership, possession and enjoyment of the property in question and there is no arrears of amount payable by him.

¶23

In the meantime, Kasim Sahib sold 1/3^rd share in the Well and 1/3^rd share in 3 H.P. Pumpset to the 4^th respondent viz. Dayalan vide Sale Deed dated 22.03.2001 and subsequently, the 4^th respondent took a Rectification Deed dated 19.04.2001 stating that in Survey No.141, 5 cents out of 50 cents with Well, 1/3^rd share in 5 H.P. Pumpset in Service connection No.101 was omitted in the Sale Deed dated 22.03.2001. It is further stated that when Kasim Sahib had sold 1/3 share in 5 H.P. pumpset in Service Connection No.101 in S.No.141 on 27.10.1985 to the petitioner, he has no subsisting right over the Well and pumpset which were already sold.

¶24

Thereafter, the 4^th respondent/Dayalan had filed W.P.No.34973 of 2003 to cancel the name transfer effected in the petitioner's name from the name of Yacoob Sahib. Pursuant thereto, the 1^st respondent issued a notice dated 08.01.2004 to the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 12.01.2004. According to the petitioner, though he produced relevant documents to establish his title, the 1^st respondent passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner did not purchase the Well in S.No.141 and 5 H.P. Pumpset in

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

Service Connection No.101 and cancelled the name transfer of Electricity Service Connection effected in his name on 04.03.1993. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶28

Respondents 1 to 3/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vellore District have filed a counter affidavit, stating that the 1^st respondent cancelled the name transfer order issued in favour of the petitioner only after making enquiry, as the documents submitted by the petitioner were found to be false. According to them, parties will have to work out their rights only before the Civil Court.

¶29

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent stating that the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit before the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam in O.S.No.118 of 2001 and that the suit was already dismissed for default and restoration petition has also been filed. It is further stated therein that the 4th respondent had purchased 1/3 share of land, Well, pumpset, shed in Electricity Service Connection No.101 situated at Nedumpuli Village, Arakkonam Taluk in Survey No.141 from Kasim Sahib for a valid consideration by a registered Sale Deed dated 22.03.2001 vide Document No.239 of 2001. Due to oversight, in the said document, the correct Survey No.141 was wrongly mentioned as 62/4, and a Rectification Deed dated 19.04.2001 was registered before the Sub-Registrar Office (SRO),

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

¶32

Panapakkam vide Document No.305 of 2001 and from the date of purchase, the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the said service connection, pumpset, shed and Well as per the sale deed dated 22.03.2001.

¶33

It is further stated in the counter affidavit that originally, the property in Survey No.141 and other properties belonged to Yacoob Sabib, who died intestate leaving behind his sons, namely Y.Abubucker Sahib, Y.Ameed Sahib and Y.Kasim Sahib and the said legal heirs partitioned the property by a registered Deed of Partition, dated 10.05.1984 on the file of the SRO, Panapakkam in Volume 1 Book 14 vide Page Nos. 221 to 230 bearing Document No.332/1984. From Kasim Sahib, the 4th respondent/Dayalan purchased 1/3rd share in Survey No.141 along with the Well, pumpset, shed in Electricity Service Connection No.101 at Nedumpuli Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District.

¶34

According to the 4th respondent, the petitioner did not purchase 1/3rd share of land in S.No.141, Well, 5 H.P. Motor, Pumpset in Service Connection No.101, situated at Nedumpuli as per the Sale Deed, dated 27.10.1985 vide Doc.No.101/1986, but, he only purchased 15 cents of lands in S.No.141 at Nedumpuli Village. It is further stated by the 4th respondent that he is not aware as to whether the remaining 2/3rd share of the property in S.No.141 was purchased by the petitioner's father Thiruvengadam and his

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶36

¶37

brother.

¶38

It is also the case of the 4th respondent that in the year 2003, the Government had ordered to pay consumption charges for agricultural service connections and when the 4th respondent approached the 3rd respondent's Office to remit E.B. charges, the 3rd respondent refused to collect 1/3rd share charges from the 4th respondent and informed that the petitioner had already paid the charge for 3/3 shares, though he alleged that he had purchased 1/3rd share in Service Connection No.101. Immediately, the 4th respondent gave a representation dated 25.07.2003 to the 3rd respondent to transfer the Service Connection in his name. Since the 3rd respondent did not consider the request of the 4th respondent, the latter was forced to file a Writ Petition in W.P.No.28650 of 2003 before this Court. It is further stated by the 4th respondent that before passing the impugned order, the 1st respondent conducted an enquiry based on available documents and found that the petitioner did not purchase the property as

¶39

alleged by him and hence, the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court.

¶40

When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 1st respondent is not the competent person to decide the title of the Well and the Pumpset, and when once

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶42

¶43

name transfer has been effected in Service Connection No.101 in favour of the petitioner, claiming of title by the 4th respondent herein based on the Rectification Deed, dated 19.04.2001 is illegal. It is his further contention that when the petitioner had purchased the property in question on 27.10.1985 and name transfer in his favour was effected on 04.03.1993, the impugned order of cancellation of name transfer is without jurisdiction and

¶44

the arbitrary action of the 1st respondent has got to be interfered with.

¶45

In reply, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that when petitioner has not purchased 1/3rd share of the property in question from Kasim Sahib, he is not the owner of the property relating to 1/3rd share in the Well and the electricity connection. He contended that page No.4 in the Sale Deed in question was inserted and that the petitioner was involved in the manipulation of records. Referring to the typed copy of the Sale Deed, learned counsel pointed out the value of the Stamp paper at each page and submitted that the contents of the inserted

¶46

page No.4 is not found in the typed copy of the Sale Deed.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶48

Today, one Mr.Dhandapani, Sub-Registrar, Kaveripakkam, Vellore,

¶49

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶50

¶51

the 5th respondent herein is present before this Court and he produced the Register of Non-Testementary Documents (Book No.I, Volume No.28) pertaining to immovable properties. The 4th respondent herein has produced a copy of the Sale Deed, typed copy of the Sale Deed and the certified copy of the Sale Deed obtained from the SRO, Panapakkam, before this Court and the original Sale Deed was produced by the writ petitioner.

¶52

Though the original Sale Deed has six pages including the last page, while comparing the same with the Register of Non-Testementary Documents (Book No.I, Volume No.28) produced by the 5th respondent, it is seen that the contents of page No.4 vide Sl.No.1294, dated 25.10.1985 in the original Sale Deed are not found in the said Register of NonTestementary Documents. Moreover, the seal of the Sub-Registrar Office concerned is not found on the backside of page No.4 of the original Sale Deed produced, whereas, the said seal is found on the backside of all other pages. Further, it has to be noted that the seal on the backside of page No.5 of the original Sale Deed shows the actual page number as '4', which raises a strong suspicion that page No.4 could have been inserted by the petitioner.

¶53

A further comparison of the extract of the Sale Deed in the Register of Non-Testementary Documents (Book No.I, Volume No.28) with

¶54

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶55

¶56

that of page Nos.3 and 5 of the original Sale Deed, clearly shows that there

¶57

is continuation of text in pages 3 and 5. Page No.3 of the Sale Deed ends with ".. vd; Rahh;$pjk; ehd; mDgtpj;JtUk;. jdf;fhft[k;

¶58

ikdh;fSf;fhft[k; and Page No.5 begins with " ,r;brhj;Jf;fis // bjhiff;F tpf;fpuak; bra;Jtpl;nld;/ " Certainly there is continuation of text in pages 3 and 5 of the Sale Deed as " vd; Rahh;$pjk; ehd; mDgtpj;JtUk; ,r;brhj;Jf;fis // bjhiff;F tpf;fpuak; bra;Jtpl;nld;/ " Had there not been continuation of text in pages 3 and 5, it can well be presumed that page No.4 had not been inserted. Since there is continuation of text in page Nos.3 and 5 of the Sale Deed, the suspicion

¶59

that the original Sale Deed could have been manipulated becomes stronger.

¶60

For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the

¶61

Register of Non-Testementary Documents (Book No.I, Volume No.28),

¶62

pertaining to the Serial Number, Date and value of the Stamp Paper, is extracted hereunder:

¶63

Dhandapany Pillaipakkam Village No.59/AKM/95, Tamil Nadu, Sl.No.1274, Date 24.10.85, Rs.1000.00. T.b$auhkd; gdghf;fk;/ G.S.Sathyanaraynanan. G.S.Sathyanaraynanan, S.V.Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. Sl.No.1275, Date 24.10.85, Rs.1000.00. T.b$auhkd; gdghf;fk;/

¶64

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶65

¶66

G.S.Sathyanaraynanan. G.S.Sathyanaraynanan, S.V.Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. S l.No.1293, Date 25.10.85, Rs.100.00. T.b$auhkd; gdghf;fk;/ G.S.Sathyanaraynanan. G.S.Sathyanaraynanan, S.V.Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. Sl.No.1295 Date 25.10.85 Rs.50.00. T.b$auhkd; gdghf;fk;/ G.S.Sathyanaraynanan. G.S.Sathyanaraynanan, S.V.Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. ehd;F Kj;jpiuj;jhs;fs; U:gha; ,uz;lhapuj;jp E}w;iwk;gJ ////"

¶67

On a perusal of the said Register of Non-Testementary Documents (Book No.I, Volume No.28), it is clear that the value of the Stamp papers in the Sale Deed in question is only Rs.2,150/-. Whereas, the value of the stamp papers as per the original Sale Deed produced by the petitioner, is Rs.2,200/-, which is due to the insertion of Rs.50.00 stamp paper as page No.4 vide Sl.No.1294. Thus, it is crystal clear that the contents of the alleged page No.4 is not found in the Register of Non-Testementary Documents.

¶68

In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner had taken the assistance of the very same Document Writer to forge the Sale Deed and interpolate it in the records. Even though it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has to be decided by the http://www.judis.nic.in appropriate Civil Court, this Writ Petition is of the year 2004 and a

¶69

¶70

comparison of the Original Sale Deed with that of its certified copy clearly shows that the petitioner has played fraud by inserting a page in the original Sale Deed and tried to achieve things, which are not admittedly due to him.

¶71

Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed

¶72

by the 1st respondent/Electricity Board cannot be said to be illegal and the same cannot be interfered with. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)

¶73

payable by the petitioner to Bala Gurukulam School, No.4,

¶74

Thirumangalam Road, Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049, where poor and downtrodden students are studying, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶75

Generally, this Court while dismissing a matter will observe that

¶76

the observation made in the order is only for the disposal of the Writ

¶77

Petition and it will not stand in the way of other proceedings. But, in this case, this Court is not inclined to do so. Since the petitioner has completely

¶78

tried to mislead the Court and has taken everyone for a ride, this Court is of

¶79

the view that he has to be tried under the provisions of IPC, namely, Sections 193 to 196 of IPC and also under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to the fraud played by him in forging the Sale Deed in question.

¶80

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶81

¶82

If the offence attracts any other penal provisions, the same can also be invoked.

¶83

Further, this Court is of the view that the matter has to be placed

¶84

before the Registrar General of this Court to take necessary steps to forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional Police and the jurisdictional Court and ensure that a criminal complaint is lodged against the petitioner and the issue is brought to a logical conclusion. The criminal complaint filed will have to be tried by the appropriate forum on a day-to-day basis without adjourning the matter beyond three working days at any point of time. The Registry is directed to keep the original Sale Deed in the custody of the

¶85

Registrar General of this Court, till the issue comes to a logical conclusion.

¶86

21.08.2017 Index : Yes Internet : Yes

¶87

Note:

¶88

Registry is directed to

¶89

(i) scan the original Sale Deed and keep the CD in safe custody.

¶90

(ii) take a colour xerox of the original Sale Deed and retain the same in the bundle along with this order.

¶91

msm/aeb

¶92

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶93

¶94

To:

¶95

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sholingur, Vellore District.

¶96

The Superintendent Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶97

The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Panapakkam, Vellore District.

¶98

The Sub-Registrar, Kaveripakkam, Vellore.

¶99

(Formerly SRO, Panapakkam)

¶100

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶101

¶102

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
msm/aeb
Order in
W.P.No.7616 of 2004

¶103

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶104

¶105

21.08.2017

¶106

http://www.judis.nic.in

T.Jayaraman v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Jayaraman v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Srinivasan, Vs The District Collector

N.Mariappan Vs the Dist.Collector

V.S.Guruswamy, Vs State of Tamilnadu

R.Ramalingham Vs Special Commissioner and

T.T.C.Cheran Vs State of Tamilnadu

Jayam Educational,Health and Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by