Evangelical Literature Service Vs The Dstrict Collector

Property Association of Baptist Churches Pvt.Ltd ABM Compound, Post Box No.4, Kavali – 524201, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its President.

¶15

The American Baptist Foreign Mission Society No.127, Pullapuram, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. Rep. by its Treasurer.

¶16

Amina Praveen.Z.H

¶17

..Respondent(s)

¶18

__________ Page1 of 6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

WP No. 17833 of 2021

¶21

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from granting patta in the name of the 6th respondent, till the dispute regarding the title to land at New No.158 (Old No.95A), Vepery High Road, Vepery Chennai - 600 007, comprised in O.S.No.690, R.S.No.736 (Present R.S.Nos.736/1 Part, 736/2 Part, in block 19, Vepery Villlage, Purasaiwalkam Taluk, Chennai District measuring an extent of 6 Grounds 1800 Sq. Ft or thereabouts is decided by the Courts

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Ms.T.Jayalakshmi for M/s.Paul And Paul

¶23

For Respondent(s): Mr.T.K.Saravanan, AGP for RR1 to 3

¶24

Notice served -RR4 & 5 – No appearance

¶25

Mr.C.Vidhusan for R6

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from granting

¶28

patta in the name of the sixth respondent till the dispute regarding the title to the land at New No.158 (Old No.95A), Vepery High Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007 comprised in O.S.No.690, R.S.No.736 (present R.S.Nos.736/1 part, 736/2

¶29

part, in block 19, Vepery Village, Purasaiwalkam Taluk, Chennai District measuring an extent of 6 grounds 1800 sq.ft. or thereabouts is decided by the Courts.

¶30

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, an agreement dated

¶31

04.07.1978 was executed by the respondents 4 and 5 and the petitioner, in

¶32

Page2 of 6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

WP No. 17833 of 2021

¶35

which permission was granted to the petitioner to construct an office cum residential building in the said property out of their own funds. Accordingly, a sale agreement as well as a power of attorney dated 04.07.1978 was executed by the respondents 4 and 5 by appointing the petitioner as their agent in respect of the said property. Ever since, a construction was put up by the petitioner in the said property. However, without issuing any notice or conducting any enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the sixth respondent has modified her name in the property tax assessment.

¶36

On enquiring about the same, the petitioner came to know that, the change has been effected, based on the representation made by the sixth respondent as if she had recently purchased the said property from the fifth respondent, who is not the owner of the property. Subsequently, the fifth respondent filed civil suits against the petitioner which are still pending before the Courts. Pending the said suits, the sixth respondent is trying to mutate the revenue records in her favour. Hence, the petitioner made several representations before the respondents 1 to 3 to refrain the sixth respondent from granting patta in her favour until the suits attain finality. However, the same has not been considered. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sixth respondent

¶38

Page3 of 6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

WP No. 17833 of 2021

¶41

has clandestinely transferred the EB connection, property and assessment of Chennai Metropolitan Water and Sewerage tax in her favour without issuing any notice to the petitioner which is per se unsustainable. When there are

¶42

several civil litigations pending against the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6, the sixth respondent is trying to alienate the petitioner’s property in her favour which is contrary to law. Hence, he prayed to pass appropriate orders.

¶43

The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that since there are civil litigations pending against the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6, the petitioner’s representation will be considered subject to the outcome of the suits pending before the Courts.

¶44

The learned counsel for the sixth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the fifth respondent has executed a sale agreement in favour of the sixth respondent. Ever since the sixth respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. However, the petitioner has no right or title over the subject property.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 and 6

¶46

and perused the materials available on record.

¶47

Admittedly, there are civil litigations pending against the petitioner and

¶48

Page4 of 6

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

WP No. 17833 of 2021

¶51

respondents 4 to 6. It is the main grievance of the petitioner that, the fifth respondent had clandestinely sold the subject property in favour of the sixth respondent and subsequently sixth respondent has also obtained EB connection, name change in the property tax records, without issuing any notice to the petitioner or conducting any enquiry. However, the sixth respondent claims that

¶52

he is the owner of the property. Such being the case, this Court without going into the merits of the case directs the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the aggrieved persons if any and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on merits and in accordance with law.

¶53

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. No costs.

¶54

16-04-2026

¶55

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶56

rap

¶57

__________ Page5 of 6

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis