High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17-9-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.25003 of 2007andMP Nos.1 and 2 of 2007V.N.M.Shahul Hameed.. Petitioner vs1.Special Commissioner andCommissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.2.District Revenue Officer Office of the District Revenue Officer Ramanathapuram3.Revenue Divisional Officer Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer Paramakudi4.The Tahsildar Kamudhi5.V.M.Meera Pillai.. RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to theimpugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedingsK.Dis.K4/RP47/2004 (1529/2003) dated 2.7.2007 and quash the same asillegal.For Petitioner: Mr.N.KannanFor Respondents: Mr.N.Senthilkumar Additional GovernmentPleader for RR1 to 4 Mr.M.Md.Ibrahim Ali for R5ORDERChallenge is made to an order of the first respondent made inK.Dis.K4/RP47/2004 (1529/2003) dated 2.7.2007. The petitioner has broughtforth this writ petition for a writ of certiorari.2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.3.The case of the petitioner in short is that his father MohammedMeera purchased the landed properties in Survey No.265/398 measuring about0.01.0 hectare, and also in Survey No.265/400 measuring an extent of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

0.01.5 hectare, at Ahiramam Village, Kamudhi Taluk, under a registeredsale deed dated 21.7.1938; that his father died in 1950; that there was anorder of transfer of patta in respect of those lands, to the name of thefifth respondent by the concerned Tahsildar, Kamudhi, dated 30.11.1989;that the said order was challenged before the Revenue Divisional Officer(R.D.O.), Paramakudi, the third respondent herein, whereby an order cameto be passed by the said authority making a modification in the orderpassed by the Tahsildar, to the effect that patta must be granted to theCorrespondent of V.N.S. Middle School by deleting the name of the fifthrespondent; that the said order was challenged before the District RevenueOfficer (D.R.O.), Ramanathapuram, the second respondent herein, who by anorder dated 4.12.2002, affirmed the order of the R.D.O.; that thereafter,the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent, theSpecial Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration; that thefirst respondent also affirmed the said order, and under thecircumstances, this writ petition has been brought forth before this Court.4.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the writ petitioner, thelearned Counsel would submit that the property was purchased byMr.Mohammed Meera, the father of the petitioner, by a registered sale deedof the year 1938; that the patta originally stood in his name; that therewas a transfer of patta to the name of the fifth respondent by theTahsildar, Kamudhi; that when the same was challenged before the R.D.O.,he has passed an order of modification whereby the name of the fifthrespondent was deleted; but the Correspondent of V.N.S. Middle School wasfound to be the person to whom the patta should be granted; that the saidorder was passed erroneously, since the property stood in the name ofMohammed Meera, and the petitioner herein is the son of the said MohammedMeera; that while cancelling the patta in the name of the fifthrespondent, the petitioner should have been the person in whose favourtransfer should have been made, but not done so; that without consideringthe position both factual and legal, the D.R.O. and the SpecialCommissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, the respondents 1and 2 herein, have affirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer,and hence, all the proceedings have got to be quashed by issuing the writ.5.The learned Counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that thevery reading of the sale deed dated 21.7.1938, under which the propertywas purchased by Mr.Mohammed Meera, the father of the petitioner, wouldclearly reveal that the property was purchased for V.N.S. Middle School;that therefore, it would be quite clear that Mohammed Meera was not theowner of the property; but, it was meant for the School; that in suchcircumstances, the Revenue Divisional Officer while cancelling theissuance of patta in favour of the fifth respondent, has made amodification that it should be granted in the name of the Correspondent,V.N.S. Middle School; that the said order has been affirmed rightly by theauthorities above the R.D.O., who are the respondents 1 and 2 herein, andhence, the writ petition has got to be dismissed.6.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made,and looked into the materials available. This Court is unable to noticeany infirmity or illegality in the order under challenge. Under thecircumstances, the writ petition has got to be dismissed. A reading ofthe sale deed dated 21.7.1938, which was much relied on by the petitioner, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would clearly reveal that the property in question though purchased byMr.Mohammed Meera, the father of the petitioner, it was purchased for thebenefit of V.N.S. Middle School. Thus, it would be quite clear that whenan order of transfer was made by the Tahsildar, Kamudhi, originally on30.11.1989 granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent, it was foundto be illegal and rightly set aside by the R.D.O. But, at the same time,no question of grant of patta in favour of the petitioner would arise. Ifallowed to grant patta in the name of the petitioner as per the request inthis writ petition, it would be nothing but converting the property whichwas purchased for the benefit of the School, into a private property ofthe petitioner which cannot be done. Under the circumstances, the R.D.O.,after going through the material and in particular, the sale deed inquestion, passed an order for grant of patta in the name of"Correspondent, V.N.S. Middle School" and rightly too. 7.Now, as far as the management of the School is concerned, it hasgot to be decided between the parties in a Court of civil law. As regardsthe property in question, the authorities below are perfectly correct ingranting patta in the name of the Correspondent, V.N.S. Middle School. Insuch circumstances, this writ petition does not carry any meritwhatsoever. Therefore, this writ petition fails, and the same isdismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed.nsv/Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The Special Commissioner andCommissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.2.The District Revenue Officer Office of the District Revenue Officer Ramanathapuram3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer Paramakudi4.The Tahsildar Kamudhi+ One cc to Mr. N. Kannan, Advocate SR 58367+ One cc to Mr. M.Md. Ibrahim, Advocate sR 57739TEJ (co)sg 21/9/07WP No.25003 of 2007Dt: 17-9-2007