Petitioners challenged a revenue order rejecting their representation to cancel pattas issued to encroachers on their land, claiming inherited ownership despite pending a long-standing civil suit for eviction and declaration.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioners permitted to approach relevant authority if successful in pending civil suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.NO.6932 OF 2009 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2009
1.P.Sundarshan
5.P.Sundareshwar ... Petitioners
.vs.
12.C.Chinnaponnu 13.N.Murugaesan
14.W.Manokar 15.K.Murugan 16.V.Dhakchina Murthy 17.N.Mohan 18.P.Ranganathan 19.R.Sumathi 20.R.Devarajan 21.A.Ganesan 22.Daisy @ Jayashree 23.G.S.Anandan 24.G.Jaganathan 25.G.Kanthan Rao 26.E.Gugan 27.Ganesan 28.V.R.Sammantham 29.Ranjith Kumar 30.R.Gomathi ... Respondents (R4 to R30 impleaded as per order dated 10.06.2009 in M.P.No.2 of 2009 in W.P.No.6932 of 2009 by AKJ) PRAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in Na.Ka.O2/37891/07 dated 22.10.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's ownership title and pass appropriate orders on the representations dated
17.12.2007 and 19.05.2008.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan Government Advocate
For R4 to R9, R12 to R18, R20 to R22, R24 to R26, R28 to R30 : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan
R10, R11 and R19 & R27 (Disd. vide order dated 24.02.2011)
R23 – Notice Served
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in Na.Ka.O2/37891/07 dated 22.10.2008 passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's ownership title and pass appropriate orders on the representations dated 17.12.2007 and 19.05.2008.
the schedule property and to handover vacant possession to the plaintiffs;
b) to declare the registered sale deed dated 07.06.2007 bearing document No.1128/2007 executed by the 59th Defendant in favour of 60th Defendant and the registered sale deed dated 12.07.2007 bearing document No.1341/2007 executed by the 21st and 22nd Defendant in favour of 23rd defendant as null and void; c) to restrain the Defendants Nos. 1 to 99 from alienating or otherwise encumbering the suit schedule properties to any third party or parties comprised in Survey No.65/1 and Town Survey No.78 of Urur Village, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020;
d) to direct the Defendant No.101 herein to disconnect the electricity connections supplied to the Defendants Nos.1 to 99 to their illegal structures constructed over the land belonging to the Plaintiffs; e) to direct the Defendant No.102 herein to disconnect the water and drainage connections supplied to the Defendants No.1 to 99 to their illegal structures constructed over the land belonging to the Plaintiffs; f) to direct the Defendant No.100 to cancel the assessment made in respect of property tax in favour of defendants Nos. 27, 30, 32, 33, 35, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 58, 59, 60, 62, 71, 72, 73, 82 and 92 for their illegal constructions over the suit property belonging to the plaintiffs;
g) to restrain the defendant No.100 from collecting the property tax and other taxes from the defendants Nos.1 to 99 for their illegal constructions over the suit property belonging to the plaintiffs; h) to direct the defendants 103 and 104 to cancel the patta illegally issued in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 5, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 44, 48 to 53, 57, 61, 62, 71 to 74, 80, 81 to 83, 88, 89, 92, 95 to 97 for the land belonging to the Plaintiffs; and i) to direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit.”
the order passed by the second respondent and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the authority concerned, if they succeeded in the suit in the manner known to law. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dm
To
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.52002
W.P.No.6932 of 2009
JPII(CO)
PM/26/11/2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was any infirmity or illegality in the order rejecting the petitioner's representation to cancel the patta issued to third parties.
Whether the revenue authority violated statutory instructions by issuing patta after verification of records as per Board Standing Order No.31(7).
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Sundarshan
The District Collector, Chennai District
The District Revenue Officer, Chennai Collectorate, Chennai
The Tahsildar, Mylapore
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
