Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2831 (MAD)

A. Abdul Sukkur v. Collector of Vellore, Vellore

2014-08-22

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the fourth respondent to transfer patta in the name of the petitioner in Town Survey No.26, Natham S.No.318/A, Natham Land in Arakkonam Town Ward D Block No.20 and cancel the patta issued to the sixth respondent pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2010 made in O.S.No.452 of 1986 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Arakkonam as per the representation of the petitioner dated 15.2.2012. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he owned one cent of Natham land in Arakkonam Town, Ward D Block No.20, Town Survey No.26, Natham Survey No.318/1A and he lived there for the past 50 years by establishing Brass Polishing Pattarai and did his business for 50 years and that the entry is there in the 'A' diary of the Tahsildar as well as in the adangal. 3. According to the petitioner, one Durai Kuppusamy (sixth respondent herein), Town Secretary, grabbed the land by demolishing the superstructure of the hut and tried to get patta in his name with the connivance of the local Revenue Authorities. In order to prevent the said illegal efforts of Durai Kuppusamy, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6192 of 2003 and this Court passed an order of status quo, till such time, the trial Court gives a finding with regard to the ownership of the property and advised the petitioner to take recourse through Civil Court. 4. The petitioner filed O.S.No.452 of 1986 before the District Munsif Court at Arakkonam to declare that he is the owner of the above mentioned land. As Durai Kuppusamy, the sixth respondent herein, did not get favourable orders in the aforesaid O.S.No.452 of 1986, he filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif at Arakkonam while disposing the appeal and the Appellate Court has remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. 5. Again by a judgment and decree dated 22.10.2010, the trial Court declared the petitioner as rightful owner of the property in question. The petitioner states that in his representation dated 15.2.2012, he requested the third respondent to cancel the patta issued to the said Durai Kuppusamy, the sixth respondent herein as well as the building plan sanctioned to him on 12.12.2011. The petitioner states that in his representation dated 15.2.2012, he requested the third respondent to cancel the patta issued to the said Durai Kuppusamy, the sixth respondent herein as well as the building plan sanctioned to him on 12.12.2011. Knowing fully well about the order of status quo issued by this Court as well as the judgment and decree in the aforesaid O.S.No.452 of 1986, the third respondent issued the sanction order to build the house along with the name changed in patta in favour of the sixth respondent. 6. According to the petitioner, the sixth respondent is a land grabber. The case of the petitioner is that when there is a judgment and decree in his favour, not once but twice, even though in the first round, there was a remand, he is entitled to get the patta in his name in terms of the subsequent judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court at Arakkonam dated 22.10.2010 passed in O.S.No.452 of 1986. According to the petitioner, the judgment and decree had become final and the sixth respondent has no locus standi to claim the property. 7. The sixth respondent filed a detailed counter stating that it is only a presumption of the writ petitioner that the judgment and decree had become final. As against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2010, he preferred an appeal in A.S.No.66 of 2011 and the same is pending. According to the sixth respondent, the appeal has been transferred and renumbered as A.S.No.95 of 2014 and the same is pending before the Sub Court, Arakkonam. Since the appeal is pending, the order of the Civil Court has not attained finality and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. 8. When the matter came up on the last occasion, it was adjourned today in order to enable the writ petitioner to ascertain the fact whether A.S.No.95 of 2014 is pending against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.452 of 1986 dated 22.10.2010. Today, the petitioner is not present before this Court, either to refute or to accept the stand of the sixth respondent. Today, the petitioner is not present before this Court, either to refute or to accept the stand of the sixth respondent. In case A.S.No.95 of 2014 is pending before the Sub Court, Arakkonam, as stated by the sixth respondent, in paragraph 4 of the counter as against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2010 in O.S. No.452 of 1986, as finality has not been attained, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. It is open to the writ petitioner to seek appropriate relief after the disposal of the appeal in A.S.No.95 of 2014 and based on the judgment and decree therein and in case no further appeal is filed by any of the aggrieved persons. No costs.