Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 31 (MAD)

N. Chandran v. District Collector, Kanchipuram

2025-01-02

P.T.ASHA

body2025
ORDER : The Writ Petition is filed to quash the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 28.06.2024 and to direct the 4th respondent to implement the order passed by the 2nd respondent, District Revenue Officer dated 08.03.2017 and issue patta to the petitioner. 2 . The facts are briefly set out herein below. 3 . The property measuring an extent of 1 acre and 18 cents comprised in S.No.280, Sikkarayapuram Village originally belonged to one T.M.Embrose. The said Embrose had sold 30 cents from out of 1.18 acres to one Narayanan under a registered sale deed dated 24.11.1984. Thereafter, on 27.03.2003, the said Embrose had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Bagyam in respect of an extent of 70 cents out of remaining 88 cents. Therefore, the said Embrose was left with only 18 cents of land. 4 . From the said Bagyam, the petitioner had purchased an extent of 40 cents of land under a registered sale deed dated 17.03.2005. From the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. On 24.08.2007, the petitioner had submitted an application along with necessary charges to the 4 th respondent, Tahsildar to transfer the patta in his name. However, the 4 th respondent had not taken any steps to transfer the patta and informed the petitioner that he would pass orders immediately after receiving the report from the Village Administrative Officer. Therefore, the petitioner had requested the Village Administrative Officer to forward the report to the 4 th respondent immediately. 5 . The petitioner would submit that since he was sent on official duty outstation he was not in a position to follow up his application for transfer of patta. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed by the 4th respondent to once again submit an application for transfer of patta. Even before the issue of patta, the respondents have been collecting land tax in respect of the building up to the year 2014. 6 . While so, the petitioner was shocked to learn that the said Embrose had executed another power of attorney suppressing the earlier transactions in favour of one Kothandaraman. The power was given in respect of the 48 cents. The said Kothandaraman sold the entire extent of 48 cents under a registered sale deed dated 20.07.2005 to his wife, Mrs.Mahadevi. 6 . While so, the petitioner was shocked to learn that the said Embrose had executed another power of attorney suppressing the earlier transactions in favour of one Kothandaraman. The power was given in respect of the 48 cents. The said Kothandaraman sold the entire extent of 48 cents under a registered sale deed dated 20.07.2005 to his wife, Mrs.Mahadevi. She in turn has been selling the properties to third parties by plotting out the land. Hence, the petitioner had lodged a criminal complaint before the land grabbing cell against the said Embrose, Bagyam and Kothandaraman. The petitioner had also sent a complaint petition to the Chief Minister's Grievance Cell. Thereafter, an FIR has been registered against the above said persons. 7 . Subsequent to the registration of the FIR against the above persons, the 4 th respondent had conducted enquiry with regard to the illegal patta issued in favour of the above persons and verified all the documents of the petitioner and the report from the Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector of Sikkarayapuram Village. Thereafter, the 4 th respondent had sent the entire records to the 3 rd respondent for necessary and appropriate orders. 8 . After receiving the entire records from the 4 th respondent, the 3 rd respondent had once again conducted a detailed enquiry and instead of cancelling the patta issued wrongly, the 3 rd respondent had directed the petitioner to approach either the 2 nd respondent by way of an appeal or a competent Civil Court. 9 . Accordingly, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 2 nd respondent on 19.04.2014. Since the 2 nd respondent had not taken any action to pass orders in the appeal, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.18490 of 2015. This Court by order dated 26.06.2015 had directed the 2 nd respondent to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 10 . Pursuant to the order of this Court, the 2 nd respondent after conducting an enquiry, by his proceedings dated 08.03.2017 cancelled the order passed by the 3 rd respondent and directed the 4 th respondent to survey the petitioner's property and issue patta to the petitioner. 11 . On 01.08.2017, the 4 th respondent had directed the Deputy Tahsildar, Head Surveyor and Surveyor to measure and demarcate the petitioner's property. 11 . On 01.08.2017, the 4 th respondent had directed the Deputy Tahsildar, Head Surveyor and Surveyor to measure and demarcate the petitioner's property. Accordingly, the above officials had conducted the survey and demarcated the boundaries on 11.08.2017. However, the patta has not been issued by the 4 th respondent. 12 . Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had brought to the notice of the 2 nd respondent at Grievance Day Petition on 12.12.2022 about the attitude of the 4 th respondent and also informed there were some more subdivisions/Patta transfers illegally effected in respect of the petitioner's land despite the 2 nd respondent's order. Thereupon, on 12.12.2023, the 2nd respondent had passed an order stating that if any subdivisions or patta were given wrongly even after the order dated 08.03.2017, all subsequent illegal entries were to be cancelled and necessary patta to be given to the petitioner as per the earlier order dated 08.03.2017. 13 . However, the 4 th respondent without implementing the order of the 2 nd respondent had passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court for obtaining patta. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 14 . Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the records. 15 . A perusal of the records would indicate that the 2nd respondent/District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram by his proceedings dated 08.03.2017 had set aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent and directed the 4th respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner. The 4th respondent ought to have complied with the orders of his superior authority. However, the 4th respondent has chosen to ignore the directions of his superior authority and passed the impugned order. 16 . Considering the above, the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent dated 28.06.2024 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed directing the 4th respondent to implement the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 08.03.2017 and issue patta to the petitioner on or before 28.01.2025. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 17 . Post the matter "for reporting compliance" on 30.01.2025.