Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 94 (MAD)

P. S. N. Appasamy v. Solai Lungi Company

2013-01-04

K.K.SASIDHARAN, R.BANUMATHI

body2013
JUDGMENT: (R. BANUMATHI, J.) 1. W.A.No.23 of 2011 -Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2009 in W.P.No.13319 of 2009 directing the 5th Respondent – Tahsildar, Gummidipoondi to consider the representation of the 1st Respondent dated 29.12.2008, Appellant has preferred the Appeal. 2. W.P.No.24945 of 2010 - Challenging the Memo of 3rd Respondent in R.C.8173/2009 dated 20.09.2010 calling upon the Appellant to furnish the documents, Appellant has filed the Writ Petition. Since the issue involved and the parties are one and the same, both Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in the Writ Appeal. 3. Brief history of the case is as follows:- One Saraswathiammal sold an extent of 39.90 acres in P.No.301 A/1 by a sale deed dated 29.8.1966 (Doc. No.3721 of 1966) to Mariammal Kuruvilla, wife of K.T. Kuruvilla. One Varadarajulu Naidu sold 26.60 acres in P.No.301 C to Dr.Alley Thomas under sale deed dated 20.8.1966 (Doc. No.3720 of 1966). The said Mariammal Kuruvilla and Dr. Alley Thomas purchased an extent of 15 acres out of 66 acres in P.No.301 A/2 from Elumalai Reddy under sale deed dated 19.8.1966 (Doc. No.3688 of 1966). K.P. Purushothama Pillai sold an extent of 30 acres in P.No.301 A/2/1 to K.T. Kuruvilla under sale deed dated 26.10.1966 (Doc. No.4742 of 1966). Karadiputhur village is a lease hold village notified and taken over by the Government on 15.02.1965 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Leaseholds (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. Ryotwari settlement was introduced in the said village - Karadiputhur. In the suomoto enquiry, the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu by the order dated 28.10.1974 issued direction for grant of Ryotwari patta infavour K.T. Kuruvilla and his family members as under:- Extent Extent Classification Nature of Order S. No. in Hectares in Acres Ryotwari patta allowed under Section 9(1) (a) of 57.55 the Act 27/63 jointly 80 23.30.0 H acres Dry infavour of Mariammal W/o. K.T. Kuruvilla (1) Dr. Miss Aley Thomas D/o. C.M. Thomas (2) K.T. Kuruvilla S/o .K.M. Thomas (2) 22.50.0 H 55.57 Dr. Miss Aley acres Thomas 81 Dry D/o. C.M. Thomas (2) Mariammal Total 113.12 acres W/o. K.T. Kuruvilla (3) The said order of the Settlement Tahsildar was challenged before the Lease Holds Abolition Tribunal, Chengalpattu/II Additional Subordinate Judge in C.M.A.Nos.211 of 1977 and 7 of 1978 respectively. Miss Aley acres Thomas 81 Dry D/o. C.M. Thomas (2) Mariammal Total 113.12 acres W/o. K.T. Kuruvilla (3) The said order of the Settlement Tahsildar was challenged before the Lease Holds Abolition Tribunal, Chengalpattu/II Additional Subordinate Judge in C.M.A.Nos.211 of 1977 and 7 of 1978 respectively. The Tribunal by its order dated 03.11.1978, remanded the matter back to the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu for consideration of the matter afresh. Aggrieved by the same K.T. Kuruvilla and his family members preferred appeals before the High Court in S.T.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 1978 respectively. By the judgment dated 28.6.1988, the Division Bench held that 1st Respondent-Solai Lungi Company was neither the claimant before the Settlement Tahsildar nor an objector and that the appeal preferred by Solai Lungi Company before the Tribunal is incompetent and setting aside the order of the Tribunal in C.M.A.Nos.211 of 1977 and 7 of 1978, the Division Bench allowed S.T.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 1978. 4. The above mentioned properties were sold by K.T. Kuruvilla and his wife Mariammal and Dr. Alley Thomas to K.C. Thomas, Cherian George and Shaana Thiruchelvam on 19.7.1982 under Document Nos.2203, 2204, 2205 and 2206 of 1982 respectively. In I.P.No.38 to 40 of 1990, the said lands belonging to K.C. Thomas and three others (insolvents) were brought to sale by the order of the High Court and the sale was confirmed by the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee executed the sale deed in favour of K. Poovanam, Mathiharan, Neelambaram, Kavitha, KKR Palm Oil, represented by its Managing Director Mathiharan. The said Poovanam and others sold an extent of 142.66 acres to Onkar Garden Private Limited, represented by Rathan Kumar by sale deed dated 26.3.2003 (Doc. No.430 of 2003). In the said sale deed, in S.No.80, an extent of 58.72 acres and in S.No.81, an extent of 55.74 acres, totalling 114.46 acres were sold. Tt appears that larger extent in S.Nos.80 and 81 were sold to Onkar Garden Private Limited under the said sale deed (26.3.2003). Appellant-M/s. Appasamy Associates and Group of Companies, represented by its Managing Partner P.S.N. Appasamy purchased the land from Onkar Garden Private Limited under sale deed dated 01.09.2006 (Doc. No.1340 of 2006). Appellant claims that ever since the purchase, they are in possession of the property and paying the taxes to the Government. Appellant-M/s. Appasamy Associates and Group of Companies, represented by its Managing Partner P.S.N. Appasamy purchased the land from Onkar Garden Private Limited under sale deed dated 01.09.2006 (Doc. No.1340 of 2006). Appellant claims that ever since the purchase, they are in possession of the property and paying the taxes to the Government. Appellant is said to have applied for transfer of patta and after due consideration, pattas were issued to them in Patta No.677. 5. 1st Respondent – Solai Lungi Company is a partnership firm engaged in the business of textiles. It is the case of 1st Respondent that 1st Respondent purchased the property in P.No.309 A/2, new S.No.81, measuring an extent of 59.85 acres situated in Karadiputhur village, Uthukottai, Gummidipoondi Taluk from Elumalai Reddy under sale deed dated 15.12.1966 (Doc. No.5604 of 1966). According to 1st Respondent, it has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further case of 1st Respondent is that the firm ceased of its business and taking advantage of their absence, Appellant approached the 5th Respondent and obtained patta in respect of the land owned by the 1st Respondent. In this regard, 1st Respondent is said to have made a representation to the Respondents 2 and 3 on 29.12.2008. Stating that the representation of the 1st Respondent dated 29.12.2008 was not considered, 1st Respondent has filed W.P.No.13319 of 2009 seeking for Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 2 and 3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the 1st Respondent dated 29.12.2008. 6. Before the single Judge, in W.P.No.13319 of 2009 on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4, Government Advocate took notice. Without issuing notice to the Appellant, who was the 5th Respondent in W.P.No.13319 of 2009, the learned single Judge by the order dated 16.11.2009 issued direction to the 4th Respondent-Tahsildar, Gummidipoondi to consider 1st Respondent's representation. Being aggrieved by the direction issued to the 4th Respondent to consider the representation of the 1st Respondent, Appellant has preferred W.A.No.23 of 2011. 7. In pursuance of the order of the High Court, the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur issued a Memo dated 20.09.2010 calling for the Appellant to furnish certain documents which is challenged in W.P.No.24945 of 2010. 8. We have heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel for Appellant in W.A.No.23 of 2011. We have also heard Mr. P.H. Pandian, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. .J. Pothiraj in W.P.No.24945 of 2010. 8. We have heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel for Appellant in W.A.No.23 of 2011. We have also heard Mr. P.H. Pandian, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. .J. Pothiraj in W.P.No.24945 of 2010. We have heard the submissions of Mr. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for 1st Respondent in the appeal and Petitioner in the Writ Petition. We have also heard the submissions of Mr. K.V. Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 2 to 4 in the appeal and Respondents 1 to 4 in the Writ Petition. 9. Learned Additional Government Pleader has drawn our attention to the order passed by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 in Rc.K1/8579/2010 dated 04.8.2011. By perusal of the order dated 04.8.2011, we find that the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration has considered the matter at length. After referring to all the documents and rival contentions of parties, the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration has observed that "claimants are directed to seek remedy from the competent Court of law". The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- "8. It is seen that the claim for the land in question came to an end on 21.6.1988 in CMA No's 4 and 5 of 1979 of the STA/High Court Bench and this was not disputed by both the claimants. However, M/s. Solai Lunghi Company has not moved the civil court for remedy. Further, M/s. Solai Lunghi Company has moved, the Revenue Authorities by filing W.P.13319/2009. The order of the Hon'ble High Court issued in W.P.13318/2009 has been challenged by PSN. Appasamy in W.A.23/2011. Further PSN. Appasamy has also filed W.P.24945/2010 against the enquiry started by the Collector. 9. In view of the above circumstances there is no need to pass orders on this issue at this stage. As such the claimants are directed to seek remedy from the competent Court of law. Therefore, the review taken upon the District Revenue Officer's letter dated 24.10.2008 is dropped." 10. During the course of argument, it was brought to our notice that Appellant has filed Petition before the Registrar General to initiate proceedings against the 1st Respondent under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging that 1st Respondent has suppressed the material facts and obtained order in W.P.No.13319 of 2009. During the course of argument, it was brought to our notice that Appellant has filed Petition before the Registrar General to initiate proceedings against the 1st Respondent under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging that 1st Respondent has suppressed the material facts and obtained order in W.P.No.13319 of 2009. In view of the order passed by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration dated 04.8.2011, now the Appellant has filed an affidavit stating that Appellant is withdrawing the Petition pending with the Registrar General. The said affidavit filed by the Appellant is recorded. Even on merits, we are of the view that no ground is made out to take action against the 1st Respondent under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for the reason that the 1st Respondent has produced all the earlier orders and proceedings before the learned single Judge and also in view of the order passed by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 11. In view of the order passed by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration directing the parties to seek remedy from the competent Court of law, nothing survives for consideration in the appeal as well as in the Writ Petition. 12. In the result, W.A.No.23 of 2011 and W.P.No.24945 of 2010 are disposed off. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.