Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 2019For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun for Mr.C.V.RamachandramurthyFor R1 to R6, R11 and R12 : Mr.S.Rajesh Government AdvocateFor R7 and R8 : Mr.J.RameshFor R10 : Mr.V.SrikanthFor R13 : Mr.M.LoganathanW.P.No.27701 of 2019:-R.Anbalagan ... Petitioner-Vs-1. The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045.2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram Revenue Division, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045.3. The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram.4. S.Venugopal5. S.Durai6. M/s.Ruby Builders and Promoters, Represented by its partner R.Manoharan ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the impugned proceedings Mu.Mu.154/2013/A2 dated 12.08.2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent to make necessary entries in the revenue records in respect of land of an extent of 29 Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 2019cents of land comprised in Survey No.21/3B4B situated at Thiruvancherry Village, Mappedu, Tambaram Taluk, kancheepuram District, purchased by the petitioner under sale deed dated 01.06.2011 bearing Document No.2990 of 2011 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Pallavaram.For Petitioner : Mr.S.SadasharamFor R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh Government AdvocateFor R4 to R6 : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Venkatasamy Babu COMMON ORDER Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai dated 12.08.2016.2. Heard and perused the materials available on records.3. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P.No.27701 of 2019 is concerned, he had purchased vacant land comprised in S.No.21/3, Sub-division No.21/3B4 to an extent of 29 cents situated at Thiruvancherry Village, Mappedu, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram by the registered sale deed dated 01.06.2011 registered vide Document No.2990 of 2011. After purchase of the said property, the Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 2019petitioner was issued patta on 09.01.2012 under Patta No.629. The subject property is part of the larger extent of 4 acres of land owned by one T.N.Vittalnatha Naidu, under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act and the provisions of the Disposal of Surplus Land Rules, 1965. After having acquired the vast extent of land from the said T.N.Vittalnatha Naidu, 4 acres of land were assigned to various persons. 2 acres of land comprised in S.No.21/3A part and S.No.21/3 were assigned in favour of the respondents 4 and 5 herein by the proceedings dated 17.09.1982. Subsequently, they also obtained sale deed in their favour from the son of the said T.N.Vittalnatha Naidu by the registered Document No.2371/1983 dated 25.05.1983 for the very same property. Thereafter, the respondents 4 and 5 herein partitioned the said property and sold the same to various individuals by sub-division. One Shanthakumari had purchased 29 cents out of the total extent of 2 acres of land by the registered sale deed dated 01.12.1990 vide Document No.1415 of 1991. In turn, she sold the property in favour of one Jai Flora Mercy by the sale deed dated 15.05.2006 vide Document No.2694 of 2006 and thereafter, the said property was purchased by one N.Ravichandran and one N.Ganesan by the registered sale deed dated 15.12.2006 vide Document No.2990 of 2011. They sold the subject property in favour of the petitioner on 01.06.2011. After having been sold the Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 2019subject land, the assignees approached the Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms, Villupuram for issuance of patta for the subject property. In the meantime, one of the legal heirs of the said T.N.Vittalnatha Naidu also made a representation claiming the property to an extent of 23.40 acres as if the said property was settled in his favour by his grand father, viz., T.N.Vittalnatha Naidu. Subsequently, it was withdrawn and requested that the status quo ante may be restored in respect of the surplus and retainable land. However, the subject land was purchased by the petitioner and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. On the representation received for issuance of patta from the fourth and fifth respondents, the Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms, referred the matter before the Tahsildar, Tambaram. Therefore, the Tahsildar, Tambaram requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram to pass appropriate orders. However, there was no action and as such, the fourth respondent approached this Court in W.P.No.26140 of 2014 and this Court, by an order dated 25.09.2014 directed the Tahsildar to consider the representation submitted by the fourth respondent and pass orders. However, the Tahsildar, without issuance of any notice to the purchasers viz., the petitioner herein and without giving any opportunity of hearing, issued assignment in respect of the property comprised in S.No.21/3, to an extent of 1.50 acres. Thereafter, the Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 2019fourth respondent was issued patta in Patta No.1173 to an extent of 1.41 acres which includes the land purchased by the petitioner by the sale deed dated 01.06.2011. Thereafter, the fourth respondent sold out the land which were assigned in his favour to the 6th respondent by the sale deed dated 04.06.2019. Therefore, the fifth respondent attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property by the petitioner.4. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P.No.9241 of 2019 is concerned, she purchased plots in Plot Nos.12, 13, 14 and 15 situated at Mappedu, Thiruvancheri Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in S.No.21/3B to an extent of 7800 sq.ft from (i) J.Kumar, (ii) Daniel, (iii) Seriammal and (iv) Shanthi by the registered sale deed dated 09.05.1995 and she was also issued patta in Patta No.635 by sub-dividing the property as S.No.21/5A1B. In L.S.S garden, there were totally 33 plots and the same formed part of the layout. It was an unapproved one and as such, the petitioner, after purchase of those plots, approached the Tahsildar, in order to regularize the same. Later, she came to understand that the property comprised in S.No.21/3 was owned by the said T.N.Vittalnatha Naidu. The said T.N.Vittalnatha Naidu and his son along with his minor sons, sold an extent of Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 20192.50 acres out of total extent of 12.32 acres to one V.Chinnaiah Reddy by the registered sale deed dated 05.01.1983 vide Document No.45 of 1983. Subsequently, it was purchased by one Thueerunnisa and she later sold the said property to the vendors of the petitioner. They executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Mallika Mohan as their Power Agent, in order to develop the subject property. After forming the layout, the petitioner had purchased the subject land. 5. Therefore, both the petitioners are aggrieved over the order passed by the Tahsildar, Tambaram and have challenged the same in these writ petitions.6. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in W.P.No.27701 of 2019 and also on the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General revealed that originally the land comprised in S.No.21/3 was classified as “Land Ceiling Tharisu”, which was owned by the said T.N.Vittalnatha Naidu. It was declared as surplus vacant land under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1965. Subsequently, the surplus land was assigned to various persons. As per the assignment, the land comprised in S.No.21/3 to an extent of 1.50 acres was Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 2019assigned in favour of the fourth respondent in W.P.No.27701 of 2019, to an extent of 75 cents was assigned in favour of one Devasakthi. Subsequently, the third and fourth respondents in W.P.No.27701 of 2019 obtained the sale deed from the son of the said T.N.Vittalnatha Naidu viz., T.V.Jayachandran for the land ad-measuring 2 acres vide Document No.2371/1983. In turn, they had sold the subject land to various persons. The petitioner in W.P.No.27701 of 2019 had purchased the subject property an extent of 29 cents from his vendors and the petitioner in W.P.No.9241 of 2019 had purchased an extent of 7800 sq.ft from her vendor. After having been sold the subject property to various assignees, once again the petitioners approached this Court to restore their assignment in respect of the subject property. The said request was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Tambaram and as directed by this Court, the Tahsildar, Tambaram restored the assignment patta in favour of the assignees. Without considering the above, the sale deeds were executed in favour of several persons. Though there was disciplinary proceedings as against the said Assistant Commissioner, Villupuram who originally assigned the subject land in favour of the assignees, the orignal assignment has not been cancelled so far.Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 20197. Further, they violated the assignment conditions and after having been sold the entire property which was assigned in their favour, once again they approached the Assistant Commissioner, Villupuram to restore the assignment in their favour. That apart, as directed by this Court, the Tahsildar, Tambaram ought to have issued notice to all the purchasers before restoring the subject land in favour of the respondents 4 and 5. Admittedly, the petitioners as well as other purchasers were not given any notice and they were not given any opportunity of hearing before passing the order.8. A perusal of the counter filed by the subsequent purchaser viz., the 6th respondent in W.P.No.27701 of 2019 and on the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.No.27701 of 2019, it is revealed, that after restoration of assignment in favour of the fourth respondent, he had executed a sale deed in favour of the 6th respondent in respect of the land ad-measuring 1.41 acres, comprised in S.No.21/3B4 including the property which was purchased by the petitioner in W.P.No.27701 of 2019 to an extent of 29 cents. He also submitted that the petitioner in W.P.No.27701 of 2019 challenged the sale deed in O.S.No.48 of 2020, on the Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 2019file of III Additional District Court, Chengalpet for declaration declaring that the sale deed executed in favour of the 6th respondent as null and void. 9. Though the petitioner in W.P.No.27701 of 2019 filed a suit challenging the sale deed executed in favour of the 6th respondent in W.P.No.27701 of 2019, it has nothing to do with the order under challenge in these writ petitions. After having been sold the entire property in favour of various parties, the fourth respondent in W.P.No.27701 of 2019 deliberately approached the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of assignment and the same was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Tambaram. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Tambaram, without even ordering notice to the subsequent purchasers, and without giving any opportunity of hearing to them, mechanically restored the assignment in favour of the fourth respondent in W.P.No.27701 of 2019. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the 6th respondent in W.P.No.27701 of 2019 cannot be considered and the order impugned dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Tambaram is liable to be quashed.10. Accordingly, the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Tambaram, Taluk, the 5th respondent herein in No.Mu.Mu.154/2013/A2, dated 12.08.2016, is hereby Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 2019quashed. The purchasers can deal with their respective properties as per their respective sale deeds in accordance with law.11. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 27.10.2025(2/2)Internet: YesIndex : YesNeutral Citation: YesSpeakingmnPage 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 2019To1. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.2. The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.3. The Commissioner, Land Ceiling, Villupuram, Villupuram District.4. The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram.5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, Taluk Office Building, 1st Floor, GST Road, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045.6. The Tahsildar, Tambaram, Taluk Office Building, 1st Floor, GST Road, Tambaram, Chennai-45.7. The Village Administrative Officer, Thiruvancheri Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kandcheepuram District.Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 2019G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mn Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P.Nos.9241 and 27701 of 201927.10.2025Page 14 of 14