AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the first respondent and the order of the second respondent in RTR No. 1032/2008, dated 21.04.2008 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to restore the patta for the land in Survey Nos. 159/13, 159/17, 159/19 and 159/22 in Andankoil West Village, Karur Taluk to the extent of 37.5 cents standing in the name of the petitioner. When the Writ Petition came up on 17.03.2010, this Court ordered notice regarding admission. Private notice was also ordered to the third respondent. Pending the notice, this Court granted an order of status quo. On notice from this Court, the third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit dated 31.03.2010 together with the supporting documents in the form of a typed-set dated 31.03.2010.
Aggrieved by the conduct of the third respondent, even after obtaining an order of status quo, alleging that with the help of the Karur Town Police, he forcibly entered into the land of the petitioner and cut and carried away the maize standing in the land and after sending a telegram to the Superintendent of Police, Karur and other revenue officials, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition being Contempt Petition (MD) No. 496 of 2010 against the third respondent.
When the Contempt Petition came up on 22.09.2010, this Court directed the respondent in the Contempt Petition to appear before this Court on 29.09.2010. Subsequently, when the Contempt Petition came up, the respondent was present before this Court. His personal appearance was dispensed with by an order dated 29.09.2010 and he was also directed to file a counter-affidavit. So far, no counter-affidavit has been filed. However, when the matter came up before this Court on 07.12.2011, this Court, on noticing that the contempt arose out of an order of status quo granted by way of interim order, feels that it is desirable that the main Writ Petition itself should be taken up for hearing and accordingly, directed the main Writ Petition to be posted for final disposal. Thus, both matters were posted together.
Heard the arguments of Mr. K. Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Kandhan Duraisamy, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.S. Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the lands in Survey Nos. 159/13, 159/17, 159/19 and 159/22 in Andankoil West Village, Karur Taluk to the extent of 37.5 cents and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. A larger extent of the said property [roughly about 75 cents] originally belonged to one Sundararajuly Chettiar, who had purchased the same in a Court auction sale. He sold the entire extent of 75 cents to one Marappa Gounder, who was the petitioner''s paternal grandfather through a sale deed dated 12.09.1921 and registered as Document No. 4982 of 1921 with the office of the Sub Registrar, Karur.
From the time of purchase, the land has been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner''s family for three generations. It devolved upon the petitioner''s father and his paternal uncle Nallappa Gounder. They divided the property and thereby, both the petitioner''s father and his paternal uncle got the ownership of 37.5 cents each. After the demise of the petitioner''s father Late Suriyappa Gounder, the petitioner got the ownership of the land. He was also issued a patta in the year 1985 to the total extent of 37.5 cents. On 11.03.2006, a fresh patta was also issued for the same extent. When he has been cultivating the land for over four decades, since the agricultural income is the sole source for his living, the third respondent, who is the son of former member of Parliament belonged to the same locality, by using his influence with the officers, committed forgery and on the strength of the forged documents, he obtained an order from the Tahsildar, Karur in RTR. No. 1032/2008, dated 21.04.2008 without notice to the petitioner and got the patta of the land exclusively in the name of the third respondent.
Since no notice was given for effecting change in the patta, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P. (MD) No. 547 of 2009. In that Writ Petition, after notice to the respondents and after obtaining a reply from the Tahsildar, Karur, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 09.07.2009. From the counter-affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, the petitioner came to know that the patta transfer was effected in the name of the third respondent only on the basis of the sale deed obtained by him in his favour. The Tahsildar also produced a copy of the order in RTR. No. 1032 of 2008, dated 21.04.2008 before this Court. This Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition, found that the stand of the then Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be sustained and it is unnecessary to go before the civil Court on the said issue and without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner''s representation was directed to be treated as an appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer and he was directed to complete the enquiry and pass order about the validity of the order of the Tahsildar, Karur.
It transpires that the first respondent therein, viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, as he was not proceeding with the enquiry, as directed by this Court, a Writ Petition being W.P.(MD) No. 11363 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking for a direction to proceed with the enquiry on the representation made by him. A contempt petition being Contempt Petition (MD) No. 412 of 2009 was also filed for punishing him for not obeying the earlier orders passed by this Court dated 09.07.2009 in W.P.(MD) No. 547 of 2009. This Court heard the subsequent Writ Petition as well as the Contempt Petition and gave a further direction to treat the petitioner''s representation as an appeal and after due notice to both parties, to complete the enquiry within 12 weeks.
It transpires that subsequent to the second direction given in the Writ Petition as well as in the Contempt Petition, the first respondent directed both parties to appear and the petitioner was represented by his counsel. The counsel, who was representing the petitioner, had appeared before the first respondent on 29.12.2009, 19.01.2009, 27.01.2010 and 09.02.2010. During those four sittings, no worthwhile enquiry took place and finally, when the matter was posted on 16.02.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner by name K. Saravanan sent a telegram stating that due to personal reason, he could not appear for the enquiry on 16.02.2010. The petitioner also personally appeared on 16.02.2010 and produced a copy of the telegram marked to him and sought for an adjournment.
It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent informed that the matter will be adjourned and due date will be informed, whereas to the shock of the petitioner, he found that the first respondent on 18.02.2010 dismissed his appeal. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the presence of the counsel for the petitioner for the earlier four hearings was noted and it is also recorded that the counsel for both sides have appeared and submitted their respective documents. But, it is only on 16.02.2010, neither the petitioner nor his counsel did not appear and did not file any documents in their favour. But, it is only the third respondent, who was present, through his advocate, submitted certain copies of documents relied on by him.
In the impugned order, the first respondent did not state as to what was the document filed before him and what was the document addressed by both sides. On the contrary, the order passed by him is very cryptic and does not even deal with the earlier order passed by the Tahsildar in favour of the third respondent and that the order was passed without notice to the petitioner. In fact, in the last three paragraphs of the order, he has referred to the opinion of the Government Pleader stating that a civil suit was filed in the District Munsif Court, Karur in O.S. No. 361 of 2008 by the petitioner and the said suit was dismissed on 26.11.2009. Since the suit was dismissed, he has to approach the civil Court for establishing the title over the property and thereafter, claim change of patta and, therefore, there was no necessity to alter or correct the patta and after obtaining necessary orders from the civil Court, transfer of patta can be effected.
The first respondent had merely observed that the third respondent obtained the property through various sale deeds and only on the basis of those documents, the Tahsildar had ordered patta transfer. An enquiry of the Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector including the Surveyor showed that the four survey numbers are in continuous area without there being any sub-division and the third respondent was paying tax upto the current Fasli. Therefore, he found that the third respondent is the owner of the property and hence, the request made by the petitioner by way of an appeal was rejected and the order of the Tahsildar was upheld.
Though in the order, it was indicated that if he has any further objection, he may move the District Revenue Officer, Karur in terms of Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, the petitioner has come back to this Court once again challenging the order of the Sub Collector, who is the appellate authority in terms of Section 12 of the same Act. The reason for bypassing the revisional authority is set out stating that there is no other efficacious alternative remedy and inasmuch as the order passed by the first respondent was based upon certain statements recorded in the absence of the petitioner, the order should be set aside. It is also stated that the sale deed produced by the third respondent in his favour was a forged document, as the comparison with the certified copy obtained by the petitioner shows that there has been interpolation in the description of the survey numbers and hence, the first respondent failed to render any finding in this regard.
Mr. K. Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel strenuously contended that since it is a case of fraud, the authorities should have gone into the larger issue relating to the difference in the certified copy of the sale deed obtained by the petitioner and the sale deed produced by the third respondent.
Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent stated that his client''s case was not based upon the sale deed referred to by the petitioner and also based upon other documents.
However, considering the fact that the Act itself provides for a remedy by way of revision to an higher officer, viz., the District Revenue Officer, this Court need not go into the factual aspect raised by the petitioner, though the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious. But, at the same time, the first Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by this Court without going into the merits of the case. The second Writ Petition was disposed of. The same principle will apply even in the present case. Therefore, there is no reason for the petitioner to bypass the revisional remedy, which is to be heard by an higher officer. But, at the same time, the order passed by the first respondent cannot be appreciated, because he had failed to take note of the earlier two directions issued by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 547 of 2009, dated 09.07.2009 and W.P.(MD) No. 11363 of 2009, dated 10.11.2009. When this Court enables the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, the appellate authority may not raise above his bureaucratic ground and hear the matter as a per se judicial authority being a statutory appeal. In the first order, this Court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer, by directing the parties to go to the civil Court, had erred in doing so. The Revenue Divisional Officer should have considered the objections raised by the petitioner in the representation made by him and, therefore, his order directing the petitioner to go before the civil Court was specifically set aside and he was directed to treat it as an appeal, after giving an opportunity to both parties and pass orders about the validity of the order passed by the Tahsildar, without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. Therefore, it involves not only giving opportunity to both parties but also to consider the validity of the order passed by the Tahsildar.
When the petitioner came up second time before this Court, when he found that the earlier order was not obeyed, this Court, once again, gave a similar direction. The term ''sufficient opportunity'' means that the authority should keep fair play and norms in hearing the parties. The fact that the counsel for the petitioner appeared for four hearings was not denied and the fact that the telegram was sent a day previous to the hearing was also not denied. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of the first respondent to state that there was no representation on the side of the petitioner. The question as to whether the petitioner was present and handed over the telegram copy sent by his counsel earlier was also not disputed. Under the said circumstances, the conduct of the first respondent cannot be appreciated. Being the statutory appellate authority, it has to apply its mind to the facts and situations of the case. In the present case, a serious allegation was made and forged documents are used for getting a patta transfer, that too, without notice to the petitioner.
Under the said circumstances, it will be unnecessary for this Court to direct the first respondent herein once again to consider the case, because the first respondent was already hauled up for two times before this Court in the earlier two Writ Petitions and one time by way of a Contempt Petition. The first respondent may get prejudiced, if any direction was issued to him to hear his case and that an alternative remedy is available for the petitioner to move the revisional authority u/s 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. If any revision is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the District Revenue Officer [who is not a party before this Court] will take up the revision and after due notice to the third respondent and the petitioner, will hear the Revision Petition as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of revision to be filed by the petitioner. In the meantime, this Court directs status quo as on the order of the Tahsildar [which was impugned in the Writ Petition, viz., the order dated 21.04.2008] shall be maintained by both parties.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Contempt Petition (MD) No. 496 of 2010:
In view of the fact that this Court directed the revisional authority to hear the matter, it is unnecessary to pursue the contempt, as the contempt arose out of an order of the status quo granted by way of an interim order and hence, and that this Court had restored status quo as on the date of the original order impugned in the Writ Petition. The Contempt Petition stands closed accordingly.