Petitioner sought mandamus to cancel a settlement deed and sale deed over allotted plots, alleging illegal alienation and obstruction of a pathway by private respondents. The Division Bench held the dispute was purely private with no public interest element and not amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction, and dismissed the petition.
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.
W.P.No.3202 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.No.3202 of 2020
M.Chinnathai
.. Petitioner
Vs
___________ Page 1 of 8_
W.P.No.3202 of 2020
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action as against the respondents 5 and 6 and cancel the illegal documents vide Settlement deed dated 8.1.2004 and sale deed dated 18.9.2017 on the file of the fourth respondent based upon the petitioner's representation dated 27.8.2019.
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumara Devan
For the Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to take action against respondents 5 and 6 and to cancel the documents, namely, settlement deed dated 8.1.2004 and the sale deed dated 18.9.2017, on the file of the fourth respondent by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 27.8.2019.
Page 2 of 8
W.P.No.3202 of 2020
issued a conditional allotment order allotting a vacant land to the extent of 0.01 acres situated in house Plot No.12 in Survey No.51/11 of Sirunesalur Village in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, the fifth respondent was given allotment order in respect of Plot No.11 and one Periyasamy Aasari got allotment order for house Plot No.13 in Survey No.51/8. In the year 2017, the petitioner came to know that the fifth respondent had purchased Plot No.13 allotted to Periyasami Aasari. When the petitioner questioned Periayasamy Aasari and the fifth respondent about the illegal alienation, they did not reply properly.
verifying the documents presented before him for registration, has
Page 3 of 8
W.P.No.3202 of 2020
mechanically registered the said documents. In this regard, on 7.6.2018, the petitioner made a complaint to the second respondent and the second respondent, without conducting enquiry, simply transferred the complaint to the third respondent for initiating proceedings against the fifth respondent. However, till date no action has been taken by the third respondent.
Page 4 of 8
W.P.No.3202 of 2020
roster.
| (D.K.K., ACJ.) (P.B.B, J.) 06.08.2024 |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Index | : | Yes/No | |
| NC | : | Yes/No | |
| bbr |
Page 5 of 8
W.P.No.3202 of 2020
Page 6 of 8
W.P.No.3202 of 2020
To:
Page 7 of 8
W.P.No.3202 of 2020
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND P.B.BALAJI, J.
bbr
W.P.No.3202 of 2020
06.08.2024
___________ Page 8 of 8_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 lies to cancel registered settlement and sale deeds and resolve a private dispute over a common pathway.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Chinnathai
The District Collector, Cuddalore
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Viruthachalam
The Tahsildar, Veppur Taluk
The Sub Registrar, Veppur Taluk
P.Vijaya
D.Krishnakumar
P.B.Balaji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
