High Court · 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.6.2012CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.27491 of 2009T.C.S. Textiles Private LimitedRep. by its Managing DirectorT.K.Chandiran … petitionerVs.1. The Tahsildar Palladam, Coimbatore District2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Tirupur, Coimbatore-District3. The District Additional Executive Magistrate cum The District Revenue Officer,Coimbatore District, Coimbatore4. Mr.V.R.A.R.Ramakrishnan … Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of a writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by thethird respondent dated 12.10.2009 received by the petitioner on20.11.2009 in his Pa.Maa.Se.Ma.15/2007 confirming the order passed bythe second respondent dated 3.11.2007 in his Na.Ka.8078/2007/A2confirming the order of the first respondent in his orderNo.M.T.R.3567/2007 A7 dated 12.7.2007 received by the petitioner on30.7.2007 and the patta No.875 dated 17.7.2006 issued in the name ofthe Rathnasabapathi Rathna Textile Mills and quash the same and directthe first respondent to conduct the enquiry by affording anopportunity of being heard to the petitioner with respect to thetransfer of patta for the property situated at Nilambur Village,Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District comprised in S.F.No.125/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ measuring Punjai Hectare 0.36.5 and S.F.No.126 New subdivisionNo.126/2 Punjai Hectare 3.52.0 i.e. 9 acre 34.5 cents. For petitioner : Mr.G.Karthikeyan For respondents : Mr.S.P.Prabakaran AGP for R1 to R3 Mr.N.R.Ilango for Mr.R.Vivekananthan for R4O R D E RHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the the learnedcounsels for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that T.K.Chandiran, representing thepetitioner Company, as its Managing Director, has filed the presentwrit petition, challenging the order, dated 12.7.2007, passed by thefirst respondent, and to cancel the patta issued in the name ofRathnasabapathi, representing Rathna Textile Mills, in respect of theproperty comprised, in S.F.No.125/1 and S.F.No.126, new sub divisionNo.126/2, in Nilambur Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District. Ithas also been prayed that an enquiry ought to be conducted, relatingto the transfer of patta, by affording him an opportunity of beingheard during the said enquiry. 3. It has been stated that M/s.Rathna Textiles Mills PrivateLimited is a Company incorporated with the Registrar of the Companies,in Bangalore, Karnataka. As per Article 26(a) of the Articles ofAssociation of the said company, its Board of Directors have the powerto sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the whole or a part of theproperties belonging to the said company, subject to section 292 ofthe Companies Act. In the meeting of the Board of Directors ofM/s.Rathna Textiles Private Limited, held on 7.11.2005, anauthorisation had been given for the sale of 9.345 acres of land, atNilambur Village, to Senniappa Sridhar, the Managing Director ofM/s.Rathna Textiles Mills Private Limited and Vidyadhar, the Directorof the said company, to jointly execute all sales related documentsand to carry out the necessary changes in the records concerned. 4. It had been further stated that, after the purchase of theproperty in question, an application had been submitted, before thefirst respondent, on 6.7.2007, for the transfer of patta in the nameof the petitioner Company. The first respondent, by his proceedings, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 11.7.2007, had transferred the patta in the name of thepetitioner Company. The village administrative officer concerned hadissued the possession certificate, on 13.7.2007. The Adangal Extractand the Chitta had also been transferred in the name of the petitionercompany. While so, the first respondent had passed the impugned order,which had been received by the petitioner, on 30.7.2007, cancellingthe transfer of patta, made in the name of the petitioner company bythe proceedings of the first respondent, dated 11.7.2007, based on theobjections raised by the fourth respondent, claiming that he was theDirector of M/s.Rathna Textiles Mills Private Limited. The patta hadbeen transferred, on 17.7.2007, in the name of Rathnasabapathi,representing M/s.Rathna Textiles Mills Private Limited. In suchcircumstances, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, before thisCourt, in W.P.No.27416 of 2007, challenging the order passed by thefirst respondent, dated 12.7.2007. By an order, dated 24.8.2007, thisCourt had directed the second respondent therein to dispose of theappeal, dated 31.7.2007, preferred by the petitioner, after affordinga reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned, within the timeframe fixed by this Court. Pursuant to the said directions issued bythis Court, the second respondent had passed an order, on 3.11.2007,holding that the cancellation of patta, issued on 11.7.2007, isirregular. However, the first respondent had been directed to issuethe patta in the name of M/s.Rathna Textiles Mills Private Limited.Therefore, the petitioner had preferred a revision, before the thirdrespondent, challenging the order of the second respondent. The thirdrespondent, by his order, dated 12.10.2009, had confirmed the orderpassed by the second respondent, without giving sufficient reasons forpassing such an order and without giving an opportunity of hearing. Insuch circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writpetition, before this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia. 5. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is thatthe impugned orders had been passed without proper reasons being givenand without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submittedthat the objections filed by the fourth respondent, in view of thependency of the suit, in O.S.No.17524 of 2005, on the file of the CityCivil Court, Bangalore, which had been filed relating to the issue ofdirectorship of M/s.Rathna Textiles Mills Private Limited has nothingto do with the property purchased by the petitioner, as a bona fidepurchaser, for valuable consideration. 7. It had been further stated that the first respondent hadtransferred the patta in the name of the petitioner company, based on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the documents filed before him, after obtaining the opinion from theRevenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer concerned.However, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is based onthe objections filed by the fourth respondent, containing falseinformation. The fourth respondent has not filed any suit challengingthe sale deed executed on behalf of the M/s.Rathna Textiles MillsPrivate Limited. Therefore, the fourth respondent had no locus standito file any objections, for the cancellation of the transfer of patta,based on such objections. 8. It had been further submitted that the first respondent has nojurisdiction to cancel the patta, issued in favour of the petitioner,without following the proper procedures prescribed by law. If thefourth respondent was aggrieved, he should have approached the secondrespondent for the cancellation of the patta issued in the name of thepetitioner company, and for the issuance of a patta in his name, asper law. The cancellation of the patta, issued in the name of thepetitioner company, had been done without proper reasons being givenfor such cancellation. Further, the impugned proceedings had beenissued without following the principles of natural justice. Hence,they are liable to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submittedthat the petitioner company had purchased the property in question, asa bona fide purchaser, investing a huge amount of money. However, thepetitioner company had not been in a position to enjoy the benefits ofthe purchase, without the patta being issued in the name of thepetitioner company. If the patta is transferred in the name of thepetitioner company, the land in question could be put to good use, byputting up a construction, based on the loans availed from the banksconcerned. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourthrespondent, it has been stated that the fourth respondent and hisbrother, late Rathnasabapathi, had started a company in the name andstyle of M/s.Rathna Textiles (P) Ltd., in Bangalore, with each one ofthem investing 50% of the total investments. 11. It has been further stated that 100 shares had been allottedto each one of them. Thereafter, it had been increased to 400 shareseach, and they continued to be the Directors, as well as the shareholders of the Company. While so, 9.34 acres of land, at Nilamburvillage, Palladam Taluk, had been purchased in the name of thecompany, on 16.9.1978, vide document No.922/1978, on the file of theSub Registrar, Sulur. Due to the differences, that had arisen between https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner and his brother, the petitioner had filed C.P.No.117 of1995, before the High Court at Bangalore, on 12.9.1995, for theliquidation of the Company. However, it had been withdrawn, by thepetitioner, on 16.9.2007. Thereafter, he had filed a suit, inO.S.No.17254 of 2005, on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore,for partition. The said suit, filed on 12.9.2005, is still pending onthe file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore. 12. It had been further stated that, on 25.10.1995, a boardmeeting had been conducted, illegally, by Rathinasabapathi, withoutthe consent of the petitioner. In the said board meeting, SeniappaSridhar and Vidyadhar, sons of Rathinasabapathi, had been appointed,as Additional Directors of the company, by creating fabricateddocuments. On 18.3.1996, the petitioner had been removed from thedirectorship of the company. After the death of Rathinasabapathi, on23.4.1997, one of his sons, namely Angappa Murali, had been appointedas the Director of the company, illegally. 13. In such circumstances, the land in question, belonging to thecompany, had been sold, arbitrarily and illegally, to the petitionercompany, by way of a sale deed, registered as document No.7052/2005,on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sulur. The sale considerationrelating to the said property had been shown as 47,00,000/-, eventhough the value of the said property was more than 5 crores, at thetime of the registration of the sale deed, on 14.11.2005. Even thoughthe fourth respondent is having 50% of the share in the property inquestion, he has not been shown as a party in the sale deed executedin favour of the petitioner company. 14. It had been further stated that the fourth respondent hadlodged a complaint relating to the illegal sale of the property inquestion, before the Inspector of Police, Sulur police station. Thecomplaint had been registered, under sections 420, 468 and 471 of theIndian Penal Code, in Crime No.480 of 2007. After the completion ofthe investigation, a final report had been filed against thepetitioner and four others, for offences committed under sections 120Band 420, read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and it hadbeen taken on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial MagistrateCourt, Palladam, in C.C.No.381 of 2009. While so, the petitioner hadfiled a petition, in Crl.O.P.Nos.3997 of 2009 and 7716 of 2009, beforethis Court, for quashing the proceedings, in C.C.No.381 of 2009. Whileso, the fourth respondent had filed a petition, in Crl.O.P.No.20884 of2009, to direct the police concerned, to conduct a furtherinvestigation, under section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code. Allthe said criminal original petitions are pending on the file of thisCourt. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. It has also been stated that a petition, in C.P.No.8 of 2008,for declaring the resolution, dated 7.11.2005, as null and void, hasbeen filed before the Company Law Board. Further, a civil suit, inO.S.No.708 of 2008, is pending on the file of the Additional DistrictJudge, Coimbatore, to set aside the sale made in favour of thepetitioner company. 16. It had been further stated that the specific ground raised onbehalf of the petitioner company that no opportunity of hearing hadbeen given to the petitioner company, before the patta granted in thename of the petitioner company had been cancelled, is not acceptable,since, the second respondent, while passing the order, dated17.7.2007, had considered the representation made on behalf of thepetitioner and the arguments adduced on its behalf. Thereafter, adetailed order had been passed. Further, in the impugned order passedby the third respondent, it has been clearly stated that thepetitioner had failed to appear before the authority concerned, beforethe said order had been passed. In such circumstances, it would not beopen to the petitioner company to state that no opportunity of hearinghad been given to it, before the impugned order had been passed.17. It had been further stated that the petitioner could seek anappropriate remedy, by filing a suit for declaration, before theappropriate Court, as per the proviso to Section 14 of the TamilnaduPatta Passbook Act, 1983. As such, it it is not open to the petitionerto agitate the matter, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of thisCourt, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.18. The obvious reason for the petitioner company for obtainingthe patta in its name is to create further complications, in respectof the property in question, by creating an encumbrance on the saidproperty, by borrowing huge amounts of money, as loan, from the banksconcerned, by putting up constructions in the said property, or forthe purpose of alienating the property to defeat the valuable rightsof the fourth respondent, in respect of the property in question.Therefore, this Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition,filed by the petitioner, as it is devoid of merits. 19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadrelied on the decision of this Court, dated 19.10.2010, made in W.P.(MD) No.7938 of 2010, wherein a direction had been issued for thegrant of patta, in favour of the petitioner therein, in respect of theproperty in question. However, it is seen that the said decision ofthis Court would not be applicable to the present case. In the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, thisCourt had issued such a direction, as the property in question hadbeen classified as a `Government poramboke land’ (Assessed waste dry),in spite of the judgment and decree, dated 21.3.1994, having beenpassed in favour of the petitioner, in the civil suits, in O.S.No.37of 1989 and 43 of 1989, by the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram,declaring the title of the petitioner, in respect of the saidproperty. 20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourthrespondent had relied on the decisions of this Court, reported inRayathal (died) Vs. Periya Kannu (2011 (1) MWN (Civil) 477) andAmmavasai Vs. The Commissioner of Land Administration (2011 (2) CWC198) in support of his contention that the writ petition is notmaintainable, in view of the fact that an efficacious alternativeremedy is available to the petitioner, by filing a suit, in terms ofSection 14 of the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. 21. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, andon a perusal of the records available, and on considering thedecisions cited supra, this Court is of the view that the reliefsprayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted, by this Court, at thisstage. 22. It is noted that the patta issued in favour of the petitionerhad been cancelled, by an order of the first respondent, dated12.7.2007. Thereafter, the order passed by the first respondent hadbeen confirmed by the second respondent, by his order, dated3.11.2007, by giving various reasons. The said order had beenconfirmed, by the impugned order, dated 12.10.2009, issued by thethird respondent, confirming the order of the second respondent, dated3.11.2007. The third respondent, while confirming the order of thesecond respondent, has stated, in the impugned order, dated12.10.2009, that the petitioner could make an appropriate applicationfor the change of patta, after the proceedings before the appropriatecivil Courts come to an end. In such circumstances, this Court is notinclined to hold that the impugned orders, passed by the respondentsconcerned, are arbitrary or illegal. However, it goes without sayingthat the patta issued in the name of Rathnasabapathy, representingM/s.Rathna Textile Mills Private Limited, cannot be changed in thename of the petitioner, during the pendency of the ciivl suit, inO.S.No.708 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District JudgeCoimbatore, seeking to set aside the same made in favour of thepetitioner, in respect of the property in question. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. From the records available, it is seen that the patta had beenchanged in the name of Rathnasabapathy, on 12.7.2007, based on theorder issued by the first respondent. Thereafter, the matter had beenagitated before the various authorities, as well as before the Courtsof law. In such circumstances, in view of the pendency of the suit, inO.S.No.708 of 2008, and in view of the serious nature of the dispute,between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and the otherDirectors of the Rathna Textile Mills Private Limited, this Court doesnot find it appropriate to interfere with the impugned orders passédby the respondents, at this stage. It is also noted that thepetitioner seeks to change the patta in its name, for the purpose ofavailing bank loans and for putting up the constructions in theproperty in question. In such a case the issues, which are in disputeamongst the parties concerned, could get more complex and complicated.Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarlanTo1. The Tahsildar Palladam, Coimbatore District2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Tirupur, Coimbatore-District3. The District Additional Executive Magistrate cum The District Revenue Officer,Coimbatore District, Coimbatore+1cc to M/s.G.Karthikeyan, Advocate Sr 37058TAM(CO)km/24.7.Writ Petition No.27491 of 2009