BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02/03/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.1932 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.C.Duraisingam 2.K.Sethuraman 3.Smt.KR.Sivagami 4.Mrs.S.Revathi ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivaganga, Sivaganga District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakkottai, Sivaganga District. 3.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District. 4.Selvaraj ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in N.K.P1/57699/2008, dated 18.01.2010 confirming the order of the second respondent in P.M.A1/1385/2002, dated 10.03.2003 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the patta as per the order of the third respondent dated 29.06.2001 in TPT.No.1531/2000-01. !For Petitioners ... Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan ^For Respondents 1to3 ... Mr.R.Manoharan Government Advocate For Respondent No.4 ... M/s.K.Elilselvi ******** :ORDER
******
This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 18.01.2010 on
the file of the District Revenue Officer, Sivaganga, confirming the order dated
10.03.2003 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakkottai, whereby
and whereunder the order passed by the Tahsildar transferring patta was
recalled.
BACKGROUND FACTS:
2. The property comprised in Survey Nos.401/1 and 401/9A in
Karaikudi originally belonged to the common estate of Karaikudi Nattars, which
was managed by the committee of Nattars, having office at Ananda Madam,
Karaikudi. There was a suit for partition in O.S.No.91 of 1927 on the file of
the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakkottai. In the said suit, Thiru.Sowmiya
Narayana Iyengar was appointed as Court receiver. During the pendency of the
suit, the receiver had passed away and as such, the suit was abandoned.
3. The committee of Nattars were in management of the common estate
and they took steps for preservation and protection of estate from encroachers.
The youth of Therkku Theru, Karaikudi were assisting the committee of Nattars in
managing the properties. In recognition of their services, certain properties
were allotted to the youth of Therkku Theru Vallambars. The youth of Therkku
Theru Vallambars conveyed the property to the petitioners 1 to 3 and
Thiru.C.Solaimalai Ambalam, the predecessor-in-interest of fourth petitioner.
The petitioners 1 to 3 along with C.Solaimalai Ambalam made an application
before the Tahsildar and accordingly, they were given patta.
4. The fourth respondent, who purchased certain items of property,
made an appeal before the second respondent, challenging the order passed by the
third respondent transferring patta to the petitioners 1 to 3 and predecessor-
in-interest of the fourth petitioner. The second respondent allowed the said
appeal and accordingly, the status quo ante was preserved. The said order was
challenged by the petitioners 1 to 3 and predecessor-in-interest of the fourth
petitioner before the first respondent. The first respondent, as per his
proceedings dated 27.06.2006, confirmed the order. The matter was taken up
before the Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai. The said proceeding
was returned, as the power given to the Commissioner to exercise the second
revision was withdrawn. The petitioners 1 to 3 and predecessor-in-interest of
the fourth petitioner, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.9764 of 2008.
The Writ Petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the first
respondent for fresh consideration.
5. Subsequently, the matter was taken up by the first respondent and
without considering the locus standi of the fourth respondent to prefer appeal,
once again confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.
6. The first respondent, in his counter-affidavit, justified the
order passed by him. According to the first respondent, the vendors of the
petitioners have no right, title, interest or possession in respect of the
property and as such, they were not empowered to execute a sale deed in favour
of the petitioners. The property stood in the name of Thiru.R.Sowmiya Narayana
Iyangar, the receiver of Karaikudi Nattar and Iluppakudi Devasthanam Trust. The
name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were never shown in the
settlement register. Therefore, the second respondent was fully justified in
restoring the earlier name. It was rightly confirmed by the first respondent.
Accordingly, the first respondent justified the action taken by him to confirm
the order passed by the second respondent.
SUBMISSIONS:
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order
passed by the first respondent was per se against the order of this Court dated
12.10.2009 in W.P.No.9764 of 2008. According to the learned counsel, there was a
specific direction issued by the Court to consider the locus standi of the
fourth respondent to file an appeal before the second respondent. However, the
first respondent has not considered the said issue at all and passed the very
same order once again. The learned counsel further contended that the fourth
respondent has absolutely no right to challenge the order passed by the third
respondent. It was his further contention that the fourth respondent cannot be
considered as an aggrieved person so as to give a cause of action to him to
challenge the order in the patta proceedings.
8. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent justified the
impugned order. According to the learned counsel, the predecessor-in-interest of
the petitioners were never in enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the second
respondent was correct in cancelling the entries and restoring the name of the
receiver and Iluppakudi Devasthanam Trust in the settlement register.
DISCUSSION:
9. There is no dispute that there was a suit for partition in
O.S.No.91 of 1927 before the Sub Court, Devakkottai. The property, which is the
subject matter of this Writ Petition, was shown as an item in the suit property.
The learned Subordinate Judge, Devakkotai, was pleased to appoint Thiru.Sowmiya
Narayana Iyengar as a receiver. Accordingly, the name of the receiver was shown
as pattadhar along with Iluppakudi Devasthanam Trust in respect of the property
in Survey Nos.401/1 and 401/9A in Ward No.14, Block No.8 of Iluppakudi Village
in Karaikdi Taluk. There is nothing on record to show as to how the youth of
Therkku Theru Vallambars have got this property. According to the petitioners,
the youth of Therkku Theru Vallambars assisted the nattars of Karaikudi to
manage the property and in consideration of their service, they executed a
document conveying the property to them. The petitioners have not produced any
document to show that the suit was either decreed or any kind of orders were
passed in the said suit. When the committee of Nattars themselves were not
having any right to convey the property to the youth of Therkku Theru
Vallambars, it was not possible for them to execute a sale deed without
approaching the Court. The petitioners would get a title, only in case their
predecessor-in-interest were having title in respect of the property.
10. The Tahsildar of Karaikdui granted patta in respect of the
property solely on the basis of the sale deed executed by the youth of Therkku
Theru Vallambars in favour of the petitioners. However, the Tahsildar has not
considered the background facts including the suit in O.S.No.91 of 1927, wherein
a receiver was appointed by the Court. Merely because the receiver died during
the pendency of the suit, it cannot be said that the suit itself has gone. The
nattars of Karaikudi were not entitled to execute a sale deed in favour of the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Therefore, the second respondent was
fully justified in cancelling the order passed by the third respondent.
11. The next question is as to whether the first respondent has
complied with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9764 of 2008. The earlier
order passed by the first respondent does not contain any reason. It was only in
the said circumstances, this Court directed the revisional authority to record
reasons. The impugned order contains reasons, which made the first respondent to
confirm the order passed by the second respondent. Therefore, the impugned order
was in strict compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.9764 of 2008.
12. The question of locus standi does not arise in a matter like
this. Even without an application from the fourth respondent, the second
respondent could have taken up the matter suo motu. The third respondent was not
correct in transferring the patta, disregarding the appointment of a receiver
and indicating the name of the receiver in the settlement records. Therefore,
the question of locus standi loses significance in this case.
13. The second respondent has not passed an order granting patta to
the fourth respondent. The order was to maintain status quo ante. Therefore, I
am of the view that no interference is called for in the order impugned in the
Writ Petition.
TO CONCLUDE:
14. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.
SML
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivaganga,
Sivaganga District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Devakkottai,
Sivaganga District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Karaikudi Taluk,
Sivaganga District.