Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED508.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.RAJ.W.P.No.7973 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 M/s.Wisdom Housing and Properties Private Limited, Rep.
by its Managing Director, S.Mohan, No.1, 5th Cross Street, New Colony, Chromepet, Chennai 600 044.Petitioner versus 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chingleput, Kancheepuram District.
3.The Tahsildar, Chingleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
4.M/S.Hallmark Infrastructure Private Limited, No.62/2, (Old No.4).United Plaza, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the notice dated 10.3.2013 in Na.Ka.No.01/2013/A of the second respondent and quash the same and consequently forbear the second respondent herein from proceeding with any enquiry in respect of the petitioner's land measuring an extent of 1.27 acre comprised in Survey No.58/11 A2A1A1 in No.92, Eachankaranai Village, Chingleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
For Petitioner ..Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,S.C for Ms.AL.Ganthimathi For Respondents 1 to 3 ..Mr.R.Vijayakumar, AGP For 4th Respondent ..Mr.N.Manokaran ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the correctness of the impugned notice dated 10.3.2013 issued in Na.Ka.No.01/2013/A by the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Chingletput as to whether the land in question is covered in Survey No.58/11 said to have been purchased by the fourth respondent under the registered sale deed 11.12.2008.
2.Originally, the property to an extent of 1.27 acres comprised in Survey No.58/11 A2A1A1 belonged to one Manickam.
The said Manickam purchased the above said property from one Mr.Mohamed Sherif and another by the registered sale deed dated 16.11.1967 under the document No.3030 of 1967.
Later on, the said Manickam sold the same to one Murugan and Durairaj by executing the registered sale deed dated 28.11.1973 and the same was registered as document No.3620 of 1973.
Thereafter, the same was sold to Chidambaram and Chinnapayyan by the registered sale deed dated 25.5.1981.
The said Chidambaram died intestate on 26.4.2004 leaving behind his wife-Nayagam, his daughters-Mrs.Nagammal and MRS.Vasanthi and his son-Murugesan as his legal heiRs.The said legal heirs of Chidambaram appointed Mr.Lalith Kumar Bhandari as their Power of Attorney Agent by executing a Power of Attorney Deed dated 21.11.2005.
However, the above said property as per the revenue records stood in the name of Vendor No.6-Mr.A.Gopal, S/o.Arasan and he was also included in the said sale deed as confirming party.
The petitioner purchased the said property from Sri, Lalith Kumar Bhandari by the sale deed dated 4.2.2008.
Since then, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and patta has also been transferred to the name of the petitioner on 14.7.2008 under Patta No.248.
3.At this juncture, it appears that the fourth respondent/M/s Hallmark Infrastructure Private Limited purchased the above said property to an extent of 2.00 acres comprised in survey No.58/11A/2A1 under the registered sale deed dated 11.12.2008 from Radha, Jayaraman, Rahini and Bhavani, who are the legal heirs of A.Gopal.
Subsequently, the fourth respondent made a representation dated 3.1.2013 to the fiRs.and second respondents alleging that it had purchased the portion of the property comprised in Survey No.58/11 out of total extent of 21.35 acres by the registered sale deed 11.12.2008, which was owned by nine persons by way of joint patta in Patta No.45 during the settlement period and later, the legal representatives of Gopal, sold the property to the fourth respondent and thereafter one person had misrepresented himself as Gopal and given a Power of Attoney to one Mr.Lalith Kumar Bhandari and the said Lalith Kumar Bhandari sold the property to the petitioner herein.
On the above said basis, the fourth respondent made a specific averment that the patta issued by the third respondent-Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner should be cancelled and thereupon, action should be taken against the person, who had misrepresented himself as the owner of the property.
Subsequently, the Tahsildar, Chingleput/third respondent has passed the order dated 5.2.2013 stating that he had perused all the documents produced by both the parties and found that the petitioner/Wisdom Housing and Properties Private Limited had a clear title over the said property and he could not accept the contention of the fourth respondent and moreover, he advised both the parties to approach the Civil Court to resolve the dispute in respect of the title over the property.
Meanwhile, the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer by referring the representation dated 3.1.2013 of the fourth respondent and the order of the third respondent-Tahsildar dated 5.2.2013, issued a notice dated 10.3.2013 calling upon the petitioner to appear before him on 18.3.2013 at 11.00 a.m.Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the second respondent and participated in the enquiry and thereafter, the said enquiry was adjourned to 28.3.2013.
The petitioner also submitted all the required documents before the second respondent.
Under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition as against the impugned notice dated 10.3.2013.
4.The only grievance of the petitioner is that once the Tahsildar, who is the competent authority, issued patta in favour of the petitioner, the second respondent has no right to issue notice dated 10.3.2013 calling upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry.
5.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that when the third respondent-Tahsildar by his order dated 5.2.2013 stated that he had perused all the documents of both the parties and found that the petitioner had a clear title over the said property and he could not accept the contention raised by the fourth respondent and he advised them that if they want to resolve their dispute in respect of the title over the property, they have to approach the Civil Court, the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer has no right to issue the impugned notice dated 10.3.2013 calling upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry and it would serve no purpose in holding further enquiry by the second respondent.
Therefore, the notice dated 10.3.2013 issued by the second respondent upon the representation submitted by the fourth respondent is illegal and the same is required to be interfered with and he has further requested this Court to direct both the parties, namely, the petitioner and the fourth respondent to appear before the appropriate competent Civil Court to solve the dispute on the title over the property.
6.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent has submitted that when the second respondent is an appropriate appellate authority to look into the complaint dated 03.01.2013 given by the fourth respondent to cancel the patta No.248 issued in the name of the petitioner and to take action against the persons, who are responsible for the creation of false documents, the second respondent rightly called upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 18.3.2013 at 11.00 a.m.Hence, at this juncture, he pleaded, it is appropriate for this Court to direct the petitioner to approach the second respondent to solve the dispute in respect of the title over the property and also direct the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the enquiry at an early date on the complaint dated 3.1.2013 given by the fourth respondent.
7.Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, after filing the counter affidavit, has submitted that both the parties may be directed to appear before the second respondent and to participate in the enquiry and that would serve the purpose of both the parties for the reason that when the third respondent/Tahsildar, Chengalpattu had already considered the issue raised by the fourth respondent and found that the petitioner had a clear title over the said property and he could not accept the contention raised by the fourth respondent, the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer is an appropriate appellate authority under Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1997 to look into the averments made by the fourth respondent as to whether there has been a misrepresentation made by the petitioner before the third respondent/Tahsildar for obtaining patta in respect of the land in question.
Furthermore, the second respondent being the appellate authority has the right to take decision on merit after giving sufficient opportunities to the petitioner and the fourth respondent.
Thereafter, the aggrieved person can file a revision under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1986.
Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as it is a premature one.
8.Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
9.On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I could see that both parties are claiming title and ownership of the land in question.
Neither the Revenue Authorities, nor this Court can go into the dispute relating to the title and ownership of any immovable property.
Therefore, in the light of the above, the third respondent/Tahsildar, rightly advised the parties to approach the Civil Court to resolve the dispute over the title of the land, as it is always open to the aggrieved person to approach the Civil Court to decide the title and ownership of the land.
Accordingly, the petitioner and the fourth respondent are directed to approach the competent Civil Court to resolve the dispute with regard to the title over over the property.
In view of the above, the impugned notice dated 10.3.2013 issued by the second respondent is set aside.
10.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.
There is no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are closed.
cla TO1The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chingleput, Kancheepuram District.
3.The Tahsildar, Chingleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District