Gnanasoundary v. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration & Ors.

6.N.Manoharan7.R.Srikanth8.T.A.Alagar9.S.Maria Augustine10.Mrs.Christy Maria Bessy11.Samuvel Koshy12.G.Thirunavukkarasu13.J.Gopalakrishnan14.T.A.Venkatachari15.S.Palani16.N.Raghupathy17.R.Gunasekari18.Mrs.Radhai19.Gandhimani20.N.Anbarasu21.G.Kamala22.Mrs.S.Latha Swaminathan23.P.Vasu24.P.Shanmugam25.Mrs.Ramayammal26.N.Manivannan27.G.Rajkumar28.Dr.Peter Sundararaj29.S.Kumar30.R.Ramakrishnan31.Mrs.Hema Balu... RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.For petitioners: Mrs.Sujatha RangarajanFor respondents: Mr.N.Senthilkumar Government Advocate for R.1 to R.3 Mr.E.R.K.Moorthy for R.4 Mr.R.Thiagarajan,Sr.Counsel for Mr.T.S.Ramarathnam for R.6 to 16 and R.18 to R.31. Mr.D.Jayasingh for R.17..ORDERThe writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedingsof the 1st respondent dated 10.02.2003, in which the revision petitionfiled by the 6th respondent and others has been allowed by the 1strespondent setting aside the order of the District Collector, Chennaidated 11.05.2002, under which the District Collector has directed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tahsildar to effect change in the patta in favour of the appellants,namely M/s.R.Shanmugam and Dhandapani.2. Petitioners 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the saidR.Shanmugam. M.Dhandapani, the 4th petitioner died during the pendencyof the writ petition and in his place, his legal representatives wereimpleaded as petitioners 5 and 6. The said Dhandapani, 4th petitionerand Shanmugam, the husband of the 1st petitioner and father ofpetitioners 2 and 3 were the adjoining owners of land in question anddue to their joint development, they have common interest. Thepetitioners are the owners of the property bearing Survey No.257 ofVelachery Village, measuring an extent of 4.20 acres consisting of 52plots in the approved layout called "Bala Murugan Nagar". Out of thetotal extent of 4.20 acres, R.Shanmugam was the owner of 2.10 acressituated on the southern portion and 4th petitioner Dhandapani was theowner of the other 2.10 acres situated on the northern portion. The4th petitioner Dhandapani got this 2.10 acres on the northern portionby a registered partition deed dated 26.9.1969. 2(a). The said Shanmugam and Dhandapani, in order to have jointdevelopment of the property, granted registered power in favour of oneC.Krishnamoorthy. The 4th petitioner Dhandapani has given theregistered power to him by a document dated 19.04.1974 whileR.Shanmugam has given power under the document dated 20.02.1974. Asper the registered power document, Shanmugam has given power toC.Krishnamoorthy in respect of 1.10 acres out of the total extent of2.10 acres while Dhandapani gave power to C.Krishnamoorthy in respectof 1.00 acre out of 2.10 acres for the purpose of laying out andformation of plots and to sell the same.2(b). According to them, the power agent C.Krishnamoorthy hasstarted misusing his power and created fraudulent documents of powerof attorney indiscriminately and he has appointed one Ramesh as hispower agent by an ante-dated deed of unregistered power dated05.11.1973 and sold the extent of 2.10 acres as well as other extentof 2.10 acres as unapproved plots to various third parties. It isalso stated that the said C.Krishnamoorthy has created variousregistered power of attorney documents forging the signatures ofR.Shanmugam and Dhandapani. The said C.Krishnamoorthy in collusionwith Ramesh has sold the entire extent of 4.20 acres in the form ofunapproved plots to the public, about which criminal complaints werelodged against them and the criminal court has imposed punishment. 2(c). It is also stated that the said C.Krishnamoorthy and Rameshhave also entered various agreements with other third parties andcreated equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds. Again, thesaid C.Krishnamoorthy appointed one Sekar as his power agent under anunregistered power of attorney dated 20.7.1983 for selling theproperty. The said Ramesh representing as the irrevocable power ofattorney agent of Krishnamoorthy and as owner of the said propertyentered into an agreement of sale with one Marimuthu Chettiar on06.10.1982 under a registered document. It is also the case of the 4th https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner that during the time when the criminal case was pendingagainst the said Krishnamoorthy, he obtained an undertaking fromM/s.Shanmugam and Dhandapani on 16.7.83, relinquishing their rights inrespect of the entire extent of 4.20 acres and all the original titledeeds were deposited in Syndicate Bank as collateral security toraise loan for his business. As there was default in payment, thebank filed suit in C.S.1419 of 1983. In the meantime, the said Rameshwho has no authority whatsoever, but only claiming as a power agent ofC.Krishnamoorthy, with an undertaking of waiver obtained from the saidR.Shanmugam and Dhandapani asserting himself as the owner, executed asale deed on 22.7.83 in favour of Marimuthu Chettiar, conveying theentire extent of 4.20 acres which was registered as a pending documentNo.P.423/83 dated 22.7.1983 stated to have been subsequentlyregistered as document No.667/89 dated 5.10.1989 on collection ofdeficit stamp duty in the office of the Registrar, Madras (North). 2(d). During the time when the registration was pending, the saidMarimuthu Chettiar, who purchased the property under the sale deed hasappointed his son Balasubramaniam as his power agent and startedselling various plots to public. Immediately after the said illegalconduct came to light, the 4th petitioner Dhandapani has filed a suitin the City Civil Court, viz., O.S.5673 of 1983 against the saidRamesh and C.Krishnamoorthy for declaration and injunction and anorder of interim injunction was granted in I.A.14788/83 in O.S.No.5673of 1983 and subsequently the said suit was decreed on 29.2.84.R.Shanmugam has also filed the suit in O.S.5672 of 1983 against thesaid Ramesh and Krishnamoorthy, wherein also ad-interim injunction wasgranted and the suit was decreed subsequently on 29.2.84. Therefore,according to the 4th petitioner and Shanmugam, filing of the saidsuits amount to revocation of the authority given to the saidC.Krishnamoorthy and the transactions made by the saidC.Krishnamoorthy are illegal and contrary to the provisions ofTransfer of Property Act,1882 as well as Section 17 of the IndianRegistration Act,1908.2(e). The purchaser from Ramesh, namely, Marmimuthu Chettiar hasnot paid the entire sale consideration, but retained a portion ofconsideration to discharge the debts due to the Syndicate Bank,Kodambakkam branch. The said Marimuthu Chettiar represented by hisson Balasubramaniam as his power agent filed O.S.9641 of 1988 in theCity Civil Court against the said Krishnamoorthy in which the saidKrishnamoorthy has submitted to the decree for declaration that thesale deed dated 22.7.83 obtained by the said Marimuthu Chettiar fromC.Ramesh is true, valid and binding on the defendant C.Krishnamoorthyand also supported by valid consideration and the said suit wasdecreed collusively and the decree was registered in the office ofSub-Registrar in Document No.341/89 dated 15.3.1989. 2(f). According to the petitioners, the said decree was obtainedfraudulently against C.Krishnamoorthy, who has never been the owner ofthe property especially in the circumstances that the power was onlyin respect of a portion of the property and the said Ramesh has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ obtained power from C.Krishnamoorthy, who himself was having arestricted power from the petitioners and therefore, the entiretransaction is void ab initio and such decree is not binding upon thepetitioners, who are the real owners of the property. On the date whensuch transfers were effected, the Civil Court has granted decree infavour of the petitioners' predecessors in O.S.5672 and 5673 of 1983dated 29.2.84 declaring R.Shanmugam and Dhandapani as real owners andtherefore, any subsequent purchasers cannot have any valid title.Further, long before the decree obtained by the said MarimuthuChettiar in O.S.9641/88, the petitioners have obtained temporaryinjunction on 23.8.83 itself and therefore, any alienation made duringthat time becomes invalid, especially when the said interim injunctionorder has been made absolute on 29.2.84 and when the said MarimuthuChettiar has started selling the plots to third parties, the 4thpetitioner filed O.S.4065 of 1987 for permanent injunction and thecivil court has granted decree on 27.9.91. R.Shanmugam has filedO.S.4066 of 1989 for the same relief and decree has been granted on26.2.91. 2(g). The said Balasubramaniam, son of Marimuthu Chettiar hasnever cared about such decree or publication of notices and newspaperreports, and the purchasers from the said Balasubramaniam in respectof 52 plots have started an association in the name of Bala MuruganNagar Welfare Association and filed a suit in O.S.6180 of 1991 againstthe 4th petitioner and R.Shanmugam as well as C.Krishnamoorthy throughits President D.Rajagopalan and that was a suit for permanentinjunction and they also filed an interlocutory application forinterim injunction and the same was dismissed on 5.2.92 holding thatthe civil court has already granted a decree in favour of Shanmugamand Dhandapani in O.S.5672/83 and 5673/83 and the petitioners'predecessors are the real owners of the property. The appeal filed bythe said Association against the refusal of interim order was alsodismissed. Some of the members of the Association are the powerfulpersons including Government servants, Corporation officials andpolice officers as well as politically influenced persons and by usingtheir influence they have obtained patta by subdividing the lands. 2(h). When the said M/s.Shanmugam and Dhandapani came to knowabout such illegal order of granting patta, they have immediatelypresented petition before the District Collector, who took action andobtained report from the Town Survey Staff and passed orderscancelling the unauthorised sub-division made by his proceedings dated26.3.99 and directed the Inspector of Town Survey to make necessaryentries in the relevant register and such entry has been made by theInspector of Town Survey, Velachery on 12.4.99. In the meantime, thesuit filed by the Association in O.S.6180/91, in which the interimapplication for injunction was dismissed by the trial Court as well asthe appellate Court, was taken up for trial and the Associationrepresented by its President was dragging on the matter by filingvarious applications which were dismissed and the transfer CMP 14393of 1998 filed in the High Court was also dismissed. The Associationlater on filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the samecause of action. After enquiring the said application in I.A.3285/99in O.S.6180/91, the 7th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court by orderdated 11.3.99 while granting permission to the Association to withdrawthe suit, has refused to grant permission to file a fresh suit on thesame cause of action. The said order has become final. Therefore, theAssociation and its members, who claimed to be the subsequentpurchasers by illegal documents having legally failed in their effortsto usurp the properties of the petitioners by illegal process, haveagain approached the Revenue Department for grant of pattas in respectof their plots on the basis of invalid sale deed of MarimuthuChettiar. 2(i). Even though earlier the Collector has cancelled all thosepattas, at the influence of the members of the Association, thesubsequent Collector, by misinterpreting the civil court decree hasdirected the Tahsildar, without giving proper opportunity to thepetitioners and their predecessors in title and the Tahsildar hasgranted patta in favour of 26 respondents, namely respondents 6 to 31by cancelling the earlier order of the Collector. On the petitioners'predecessors filing an application before the Collector on 22.11.1999,after conducting enquiry, the Collector has passed an order on11.05.2002 cancelling the illegal sub-divisions effected in the landand the pattas granted by the Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk in hisorder dated 29.12.2000. 2(j). As against the order of the District Collector dated11.05.2002, cancelling the sub-division pattas granted by theTahsildar, respondents 6 to 31 have filed W.P.No.20065 of 2002, whichwas disposed of at the admission stage, directing them to avail thestatutory remedy. It was thereafter, respondents 6 to 31 have filed arevision petition before the first respondent, viz., the SpecialCommissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, who, by theimpugned order dated 10.02.2003, has set aside the order of theDistrict Collector dated 11.05.2002, upholding the order of Tahsildardated 29.02.2000, effecting sub-division in the land in Survey No.257,Vellachery and granting pattas to respondents 6 to 31. It is againstthe said order of the first respondent passed in the revision, thepresent writ petition is filed by the petitioners.3. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioners on variousgrounds, including that the said Marimuthu Chettiar, who is stated tohave purchased from Ramesh has no right over the property at all dueto various reasons, viz., that C.Krishnamoorthy himself was givenpower only in respect of a portion of the property to develop the sameby M/s.R.Shanmugam and N.Dhandapani and the said power agentC.Krishnamoorthy cannot have any right to give further power to Rameshand even assuming that such power is given to Ramesh, he cannot begiven authorisation in respect of entire extent of property andtherefore, the sale of entire extent of property to Balasubramaniam,S/o.Marimuthu Chettiar is not valid in the eye of law and it has to bedeclared as obtained illegally and therefore, the members of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Association, who have stated to have purchased from theBalasubramaniam, S/o.Marimuthu Chettiar cannot have valid right ortitle over the property at all and on the face of the decree passed bythe civil Court, the first respondent should have rejected therevision by confirming the order of the Collector.3(a). It is stated that the finding of the first respondent inthe revision that the power of attorney given by M/s.R.Shanmugam andN.Dhandapani in favour of C.Krishnamoorthy and his credibility havenot been questioned in the suit in O.S.No.6180 of 1991, which istotally a misconception of the entire legal proceedings by the firstrespondent; that the decree in O.S.No.9641 of 1998 has become finaland the same has not been set aside in the manner known to law and insuch circumstance, the first respondent being the revisionalauthority, while granting patta, is bound by such decree passed by thecompetent civil Court; that the first respondent has failed toappreciate that against the criminal conduct of C.Krishnamoorthy andRamesh many criminal cases have been filed in which punishment hasbeen imposed and that in any event, the first respondent whiledisposing of the revision ought to have directed the respondents 6 to31 to approach the Civil Court and obtain necessary orders.4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 to 31, it isstated that in the year 1989, the said respondents have decided topurchase the plots and one Marimuthu Chettiar has offered to sell theplots as per the lay-out approved in DTP.221/75 of an extent of 4.20acres in S.F.No.257 of Velachery Village, Chennai-42. While it isadmitted that R.Shanmugam has purchased and became owner of 2.10 acreson the southern side and N.Dhandapani was the owner of other 2.10acres on the northern side, they have executed four irrevocable powerof attorney deeds in respect of 4.20 acres and entrusted physicalpossession of the entire extent of the property to oneC.Krishnamoorthy. It is their further case that the said R.Shanmugamand N.Dhandapani claimed an amount of Rs.42,000/- as price for theentire extent of 4.20 acres. In those circumstance, C.Krishnamoorthyidentified one V.Ramesh, Proprietor of Meena Traders as purchaser,through him and a sum of Rs.42,000/- has been paid to M/s.R.Shanmugamand N.Dhandapani in full quit of their entire claim and they havepassed a stamped receipt acknowledging the full settlement of theentire sale consideration.4(a). It is to save the stamp duty, as it is prevalent in thereal estate business, the said N.Dhandapani and R.Shanmugam did notexecute sale deed in the name of Ramesh. Letters of authorisationenabling Ramesh to deal with the property in his own right as agentcoupled with interest was given even without any reference to theirpower agent C.Krishnamoorthy. They also passed physical possession ofthe entire extent of 4.20 acres to Ramesh in 1975 itself. The saidC.Krishnamoorthy has completed his job of selling the entire propertyof 4.20 acres in one lot to Ramesh and handed over vacant possessionof the entire lands to Ramesh in 1974 itself. Krishnamoorthy in turnrequested Ramesh to pay to him Rs.1,36,500/- so that he may return to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his original business in film line. Ramesh paid that amount toKrishnamoorthy, borrowing the same from Syndicate Bank and since theSyndicate Bank has demanded certain security, three parent documentsof Shanmugam and Dhandapani viz., D.No.2367/65, 2366/65, 776/69 weremortgaged with the Syndicate Bank, Saidapet by the said Ramesh.Thereafter, the said Ramesh along with Krishnamoorthy went toSyndicate Bank and paid Rs.8,500/- in full discharge of the abovemortgage debt and redeemed all the three parent documents andKrishnamoorthy has surrendered all original documents in respect ofthe property to Ramesh, including irrevocable power of attorneydocument granted by Shanmugam and Dhandapani to Krishnamoorthy.4(b). In addition to that, Krishnamoorthy has also executed powerof attorney in favour of Ramesh enabling him to sell independently theproperty in his own rights as agent coupled with interest andthereafter the said Ramesh has obtained approval for the layout fromthe Director of Town and Country Planning, Chengleput dated20.09.1975. Therefore, according to the said respondents, Ramesh hasbecome owner of the entire property in 1975, having redeemed theoriginal documents from Syndicate Bank and the said Shanmugam andDhandapani have no right over the property. Thereafter, the saidRamesh has agreed to sell 4.20 acres to Marimuthu Chettiar and entereda registered sale agreement under Document No.3355 dated 06.10.1982.4(c). On 22.07.1983, Ramesh has executed pucca sale deed infavour of Marimuthu Chettiar. In fact the said Krishnamoorthy, whohas represented Dhandapani and Shanmugam as power agent has alsogranted indenture ratifying the sale executed in favour of MarimuthuChettiar putting Marimuthu Chettiar in physical possession of theproperty. Ramesh has also handed over the layout plan to theMarimuthu Chettiar and the Marimuthu Chettiar has become owner from06.10.1982. It is the further case of the respondents that the saidShanmugam and Dhandapani have filed O.S.Nos.5672 and 5673 of 1983 on25.08.1983, much after the execution of sale deed by Ramesh in favourof Marimuthu Chettiar, which was on 22.07.1983 and Marimuthu Chettiarhaving been put in possession of the entire property, any order passedand obtained by Shanmugam and Dhandapani after the said date is notbinding since by that time the Marimuthu Chettiar has taken possessionof the property. It is also their case that the suits filed byDhandapani and Shanmugam are only against Krishnamoorthy and Ramesh,that too, after Marimuthu Chettiar has become owner under a registereddocument dated 22.03.1983.4(d). The said Shanmugam and Dhandapani have no documents withthem at all. Even in the suits filed by them they have filed onlypaper publication, lawyer's notice issued by Ramesh andacknowledgement card. Therefore, according to the respondents, thesuits filed by the said Shanmugam and Dhandapani are not binding.Further, the suits filed by Shanmugam and Dhandapani in O.S.Nos.4065and 4066 of 1989 were against Balasubramaniam, S/o.Marimuthu Chettiarfor bare injunction and according to the respondents, the saidBalasubramaniam is a stranger and he had nothing to do with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ properties at S.F.No.257. It is also their case that Shanmugam andDhandapani are antisocial elements. It is the further case of therespondents that the said Shanmugam and Dhandapani used to createbogus power of attorney in the names of imaginary persons, viz.,Appavoo, Mani, Subramani, Ranganayaki, Gopalakrishnan, Moorthy,Janarthanam and so many other persons and thereby made gullible andinnocent purchasers to believe the power and purchase the properties.It is their further case that the said Dhandapani and Shanmugam havenot filed any substantive suit for declaration from 1979 to 2008. Itis also the case of the said respondents that the suit filed byMarimuthu Chettiar viz., O.S.No.9641 of 1988 before the XII AssistantCity Civil Judge, Madras was decreed on 30.11.1988 to the effect thatthe sale deed of Ramesh dated 22.07.1983 in favour of MarimuthuChettiar and the indenture granted by Krishnamoorthy are perfectlytrue, valid in law and binding on all concerned in the eye of law.The said decree obtained by the Marimuthu Chettiar has been registeredas document No.341 of 1989 on 15.03.1989.4(e). Marimuthu Chettiar sold the land to the extent of 4.20acres as 54 plots as approved by DTP between 1989 and 1990. Therespondents 6 to 31 have purchased the properties and therefore, thesaid respondents are the bona fide purchasers. According to them,having purchased the property in 1989-90, they have perfected title byadverse possession. Having been in uninterrupted possession for 18years, no case has been filed against respondents 6 to 31. Whenindividual patta was granted by the Collector on 01.06.1999, Shanmugamand Dhandapani have objected the same and thereafter the ZonalTahsildar has conducted enquiry for six months. Considering thecounter claim and all documents and after hearing the said Shanmugamand Dhandapani, finally the Tahsildar reported to the Collector thatthe claim of respondents 6 to 31 is genuine. 4(f). It was, thereafter, the Collector directed the Tahsildar toissue individual patta. Accordingly, the patta was also granted bythe Tahsildar on 20.02.2000. It was against the said order,Shanmugam and Dhandapani have filed appeal before the Collector andthe Collector without giving opportunity to respondents 6 to 31 andsolely on the basis of appeal memo by Shanmugam and Dhandapani itself,passed orders on 11.05.2002, setting aside the order of Tahsildar ingranting patta to respondents 6 to 31. It was in those circumstances,after approaching the High Court, as per the direction of the HighCourt to approach the appropriate authority, respondents 6 to 31 havefiled revision before the first respondent and the first respondenthaving given opportunity to all the parties, in which Shanmugam andDhandapani have participated actively through their counsel,ultimately passed the impugned order, allowing the revision filed byrespondents 6 to 31 setting aside the order of the Collector,directing the Tahsildar to issue patta.5. Mrs.Sujatha Rangarajan, learned counsel for the petitionerscontended that inasmuch as M/s.Shanmugam and Dhandapani have grantedpower to C.Krishnamoorthy only in respect of 1.10 acres and 1.00 acre https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respectively, authorising him to layout and sell the plots, the saidKrishnamoorthy cannot have any right to sub-delegate his powers toanother person including Ramesh. Her further contention is that whileC.Krishnamoorthy has authorised Ramesh, it can never be expected thatRamesh would have more right than the power agent Krishnamoorthy hadand therefore, the alleged sale stated to have been made by Ramesh toMarimuthu Chettiar in respect of the entire extent of 4.20 acres hasto be declared as nullity. According to her, the sale of variousplots, numbering 52 in the name of "Bala Murugan Nagar" by the son ofMarimuthu Chettiar cannot have any legal sanction and the revenueauthorities should have considered the same. 5(a). It is her further submission that any sale which has beeneffected has no validity when the interim injunction in the suitsfiled by M/s.Shanmugam and Dhandapani in O.S.Nos.5672 and 5673 of 1983was in force. It is also her contention that even places earmarkedfor public purposes as per the approved layout granted by the Town andCountry Planning have been sold away by the said Ramesh as it isproved through various documents and the same has not been consideredby respondents 1 to 3. It is her further submission that the decreestated to have been obtained by Marimuthu Chettiar in O.S.No.9641 of1988 declaring that the sale deed effected to Marimuthu Chettiar dated22.07.1983 is valid should be simply ignored on the ground that it isa collusive decree. It is also her submission that the suit filed bythe members of Bala Murugan Nagar Association in O.S.No.6180 of 1991against M/s.Shanmugam and Dhandapani was withdrawn with liberty tofile fresh suit and no fresh suit has been filed and in suchcircumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, in allowingthe revision petitions filed by respondents 6 to 31 is not inaccordance with law.6. On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr.R.Thiyagarajan,learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 31 exceptrespondent No.17, that for allowing revision the first respondent hasgiven many valid reasons by examining the village accounts and he hasalso found that the Collector sought to cancel the sub-divisionwithout notice to the parties. It is his submission that the saidrespondents have purchased various plots from Balasubramaniam, poweragent of Marimuthu Chettiar, who was empowered under the documentdated 10.12.1989 and after purchase they have applied to the Collectorfor issuance of patta, who forwarded the matter to the Tahsildar, who,in turn, has granted patta. On the other hand, the Collector hascancelled the order of issuance of patta on the basis of a civil Courtjudgement which is purely a suit for injunction where no title hasbeen decided by any Court and since the Collector has committed abasic error, the first respondent has allowed the revision. 6(a). It is his further contention that the decree passed inO.S.No.9641 of 1988 declaring that the sale effected by MarimuthuChettiar is valid, is perfectly in order and the agreement between thesaid Kirshnamoorthy and Ramesh is also valid and the said suit inO.S.No.9641 of 1988 was filed by Marimuthu Chettiar against https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C.Krishnamoorthy, who was admittedly the power agent of the saidM/s.Shanmugam and Dhandapani which power subsisted and as long as thepower remained valid the said decree is binding upon M/s.Shanmugamand Dhandapani. According to him, the burden to prove thatC.Krishnamoorthy had no power to represent M/s.R.Shanmugam andDhandapani is on the part of the petitioners and not for MarimuthuChettiar, who has purchased the property by relying upon the power ofattorney document. It is also his further contention that as far asthe decision on the title is concerned, it is only for the civil Courtand not for the revenue authority who decide on the basis of theentries in the revenue records and prima facie possession. He wouldalso submit that the very fact that the said R.Shanmugam andDhandapani have filed suits without producing any document shows thatwhile granting power to the said C.Krishnamoorthy, they have receivedfull consideration in respect of the property and therefore, the saidC.Krishnamoorthy is not merely an agent, but an agent coupled withinterest and he had authority to sell the property either by himselfor delegate power to somebody else.7. Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the 17threspondent, who is one of the purchaser of the plot in Bala MuruganNagar submits that in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition, the petitioners have specifically admitted the execution ofvarious documents, including the agreement of sale by C.Krishnamoorthywith Marimuthu Chettiar dated 06.10.1982, which was a registereddocument. It is also his further contention that in the affidavit thewrit petitioners have specifically admitted that M/s.R.Shanmugam andDhandapani have given undertaking for waiver and relinquishment ofrights and on that basis, sale deed was executed in favour ofMarimuthu Chettiar on 22.07.1983 and the same was registered asdocument No.667 of 1989. It was after the said C.Krishnamoorthy hasexecuted sale deed in favour of Marimuthu Chettiar, M/s.Shanmugam andDhandapani have filed injunction suit on 23.08.1983. Based on thesaid sale deed, the respondents have purchased various plots underforty six documents. In the absence of questioning of any of the saledeeds either by Shanmugam and Dhandapani or the writ petitioners,there was no necessity on the part of the revenue authorities toinvestigate about the validity or otherwise of such documents whilegranting patta. He would also insist that the agreement given toC.Kirshnamoorthy by R.Shanmugam and Dhandapani is not merely anagency, but it is an agency coupled with interest protected underSection 222 of the Indian Contract Act,1872.8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and therespondents and perused the records and given my anxious thoughts tothe issues involved in this case.9. Certain facts which are available in the affidavit filed bythe petitioners in support of the writ petition are not in dispute.The original ownership of the property with R.Shanmugam and Dhandapaniis not in dispute. It is seen that Shanmugam has executed anirrevocable registered power of attorney dated 20.2.74 in favour of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C.Krishnamoorthy in respect of 1.10 acres. Likewise Dhandapani hasexecuted a registered irrevocable power of attorney in favour ofC.Krishnamoorthy on 19.04.1974 in respect of one acre. It is alsoseen in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioners thatDhandapani has executed another deed of registered power of attorneyin favour of C.Krishnamoorthy on 21.8.1975 relating to 50 cents oflands in the same survey number, namely S.No.257.10. It is the case of the petitioners that the saidC.Krishnamoorthy, who was the power agent of M/s.R.Shanmugam andDhandapani, has unauthorisedly given unregistered power in favour ofone Ramesh. While it is the case of the petitioners that the powergiven to the said C.Krishnamoorthy is only in respect of a limitedextent of property and the power was given only for the purpose oflaying out, a reference to the contents of the said registered powerdocuments nevertheless shows that the power was given by R.Shanmugamand Dhandapani to C.Krishnamoorthy initially for the purpose of notonly laying out property, but also to sell various portions of theproperty.11. While it is the case of the petitioners that the saidC.Krishnamoorthy to whom the power was given under the registereddocument by R.Shanmugam and Dhandapani misused the said power byappointing a third party Ramesh as his power agent and therefore,C.Krishnamoorthy who himself a power agent cannot sub-delegate hispower to Ramesh and consequently any sale effected by Ramesh orKrishnamoorthy in favour of Marimuthu Chettiar should be deemed to beinvalid, but, the fact remains that it is not even the case of thepetitioners that the said R.Shanmugam and Dhandapani have cancelledthe power given to C.Krishnamoorthy at any point of time. It is alsorelevant to point out that in fact R.Shanmugam has executed a deed ofundertaking on 16.7.1983 as it is seen in the typed set of papersfiled by the petitioners themselves in which the said R.Shanmugam hasin clear terms admitted receipt of consideration of Rs.21,000/- inrespect of the property while executing power of attorney document.In the said letter, R.Shanmugam has in fact authorised Ramesh toproceed with sale unconditionally without reference to him and it isspecifically stated that he would extend all his co-operation,including the clearing of encroachments etc., and to complete the saleor sales, on the withdrawal of the complaints given by him. On thatbasis, the said Ramesh has agreed to withdraw the criminal complaints.12. Likewise, M.Dhandapani has also executed a deed ofundertaking in favour of Ramesh on 16.7.83 in the same terms asexecuted by Shanmugam. While so, it is not known as to how the saidR.Shanmugam and Dhandapani can now turn around to say that they werenot aware of Ramesh at all. It is also an admitted fact that byvirtue of the authorisation given, the said Ramesh has sold the entireextent of 4.20 acres belonged to R.Shanmugam and Dhandapani under aregistered sale deed dated 22.7.83 and admittedly, the writpetitioners had the knowledge of the same on the date of writ petitionitself, as found in the affidavit. The fact remains that as on date https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ neither R.Shanmugam and Dhandapani nor the writ petitioners or anyother person have questioned the validity of the said sale deed. Itwas after the said sale deed dated 22.7.83, by which the entire extentof the property has been sold away to Marimuthu Chettiar to theknowledge of the petitioners and their predecessors, on 23.8.83R.Shanmugam and Dhandapani filed the suits for bare injunction inO.S.Nos.5672 and 5673 of 1983 from effecting further sale and thatsuits were filed against V.Ramesh and C.Krishnamoorthy. Whenadmittedly the sale was effected much before the suit for injunctionfiled by R.Shanmugam and Dhandapani in O.S.5672 and 5673 of 1983 inwhich an ex parte decree of injunction was obtained on 29.2.84, itcannot be said that the decree would make the sale effected in favourof Marimuthu Chettiar on 22.7.83 under registered document, a nullity.13. On the other hand, it is not the case of respondents 6 to 31- purchasers that the entire factual situation would assert thatC.Krishnamoorthy who was given power is merely an agent, and thereading of the said deed of power along with the undertakings asstated above shows that there is substance in the contention ofrespondents 6 to 31 that neither C.Krishnamoorthy, nor Ramesh can bedeclared as strangers; on the other hand, they may be treated asagents coupled with interest as per section 222 of the Indian ContractAct,1872, in which event, certainly they have substantial right overthe property and they cannot be treated as mere agents. The specificdeed of undertaking given by R.Shanmugam and Dhandapani as statedabove as it has been filed by the petitioners in the typed set ofpapers makes it clear that they have received consideration fromC.Krishnamoorthy and in the absence of any case filed by thepetitioners or their predecessors in title namely, R.Shanmugam andDhandapani to set aside the sale deed, there is absolutely nothing inthe realm of law to treat respondents 6 to 31 as strangers and thesale deeds obtained by them are nullity.14. In fact, as correctly pointed out by the learned seniorcounsel for respondents 6 to 31, neither this Court, nor the revenueauthorities while dealing with the issuance of patta have anyjurisdiction to decide about the legality or otherwise of thedocuments which are the powers of the civil court.15. On the admitted fact that the power given to C.Krishnamoorthyhas not been cancelled by the principals, viz., R.Shanmugam andDhandapani, certainly the decree of declaration obtained by MarimuthuChettiar in O.S.9641/88 dated 30.11.88 cannot be simply brushed aside.That was a decree wherein the civil court has declared that the saleeffected in favour of Marimuthu Chettiar on 22.7.83 by Ramesh is avalid document. In such background as I have enumerated above, if theimpugned order of the 1st respondent is looked into, it would be madeclear that the order of the 1st respondent in allowing the revisionfiled by respondents 6 to 31, setting aside the order of the DistrictCollector dated 11.05.2002 cannot be held to be either invalid orillegal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. A reference to the impugned order of the 1st respondent showsthat apart from considering the several aspects, in a prima faciemanner, the 1st respondent has in fact considered the village accountswherein, in 1991 itself there has been sub-division which wascancelled by the Collector on 26.3.1999 without conducting any enquirydirecting the patta to be issued in the name of R.Shanmugam andDhandapani. After purchase of various plots by respondents 6 to 31, ontheir application for grant of patta to the Collector, the same wasreferred by the Collector to the Tahsildar, who in his turn hasgranted patta in favour of the said respondents on 29.02.2000, whichwas arbitrarily cancelled by the District Collector by order dated11.05.2002. 17. It is relevant to point out at this stage that when theTahsildar has granted patta as stated above in 2000, on appeal filedby R.Shanmugam and Dhandapani, the District Collector has passedorder on 11.05.2002, without even conducting enquiry and givingopportunity to respondents 6 to 31, in whose favour patta wasadmittedly granted by the Tahsildar even in 2000. Even from thereading of the order of the District Collector dated 11.05.2002, whichhas been set aside on revision, it is clear that the same was withoutappreciation of the legal issues involved; but on the other hand, hehas decided to go into the validity of various documents, which iscertainly not the power of the revenue authorities, including theCollector.18. On the factual matrix which I have enumerated above,especially in the circumstances that mere grant of patta itself is notsufficient to prove ownership and that their predecessors in titleR.Shanmugam and Dhandapani have not taken steps to set aside thedecree in favour of Marimuthu Chettiar, the petitioners cannot haveany grievance as it is always open to them to work out their remedy inthe competent court of law, of course, subject to the period oflimitation as prescribed in law, against the entire transactioninvolving C.Krishnamoorthy and Ramesh, in the manner known to law. Insuch circumstances, when the 1st respondent has in fact referred tothe village accounts to come to the conclusion that the order of theDistrict Collector cancelling the sub-division pattas is not valid,the impugned order of the first respondent does not require anyinterference by this Court. In view of the same, the writ petitionfails and the same is dismissed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ khTo1.The Special Commissioner andCommissioner of Land AdministrationChepauk, Chennai 5.2.The District Collector Chennai District Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1.3.The Tahsildar Mambalam Guindy Taluk Bharathidasan Colony Road Chennai 78.4.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Chennai 3.5.Assistant Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Distribution) Velachery Chennai 42.+ one cc to Mr. V. Selvaraj, Advocate, SR. 24045+ one cc to Mr. S. Thanksamy, Advocate, SR.23498+ 6 ccs to Mr. T.S. Ramarathnam, Advocate, SR.23498+ one cc to MR. R.K. Moorthy, Advocate, SR.23897SKD(CO)RP 30.04.08W.P.No.9650 of 2003