V.Chandru v. The Sub Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.08.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.No.31218 of 2007 and M.P.No.3 of 2007 V.Chandru

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The Sub Collector, 2.The Tahsildar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

3.Anandaprasad

...Respondents

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in Proc.No.Na.Ka.7741/06/A4, dated 20.12.2006 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore he petitioner's name in the revenue records in respect of the property situated in S.No.38/1A5 and S.No.38/1C5, Singasadanapally Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents: Mr.I.Sathish, Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.M.D.Thirunavukarasu for R3

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No.Na.Ka.7741/06/A4, dated

20.12.2006 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore patta in the name of the petitioner.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent was compromised and they have sold the property to one Nagarajachetty on 25.09.2013, who in turn sold the property to one Munireddy.

4. It seems that the petitioner before filing this writ petition instituted a suit in O.S.No.293 of 2007 before the District Munsif, Hosur for declaration and permanent injunction against the third respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in respect of the property in dispute, patta was originally issued in favour of the petitioner's vendors father under the Inam Abolition Act. The petitioner had purchased the property by way of registered sale deed and issued with patta, however, the second respondent without providing any opportunity has arbitrarily transferred patta in the name of the third respondent.

6. Taking note of the above facts, the property was already sold by the petitioner by way of registered sale deed to third parties, I find no merits in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Sub Collector,

2.The Tahsildar, +1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate Sr.66535 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.66757 W.P.No.31218 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 svI[co] srg 25/09/2019