Mrs.R.V.Kamala v. S.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.11.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN Contempt Petition No.1629 of 2016 and Review Application No.141 of 2016.
Contempt Petition No.1629 of 2016:- R.V.Kamala .. Petitioner Vs 1.S.Ramakrishnan 2.R.Rajalakshmi The District Collector Kancheepuram District 3.Omprakash The Tahsildhar Thiruporur Taluk Kancheepuram District .. Respondents Prayer in Contempt Petition: Petition praying to punish the respondents for flouting the order of this court dated 18.03.2016 passed in Review Application No.48 of 2015 in W.P.No.16107 of 2015.
For petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan For Respondents: Mr.S.T.S.Murthi, Addl.Advocate General Assisted by Mr.P.S.Sivashanmughasundaram, Spl.G.P., for R2 and R3.
Mr.Nizar Ahamed for R1 Review Application No.141 of 2016:- 1.The District Collector Kancheepuram District
2. The Tahsildar Thiruporur Taluk Kancheepuram District
3. The Sub Registrar Thiruporur
4. The Inspector General of Registration Santhome Chennai-600 004 .. Appellants Vs 1.R.V.Kamala 2.S.Ramakrishnan .. Respondents Prayer in Rev.App.No.141 of 2016:- Petition praying to review the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by this court in Review Application No.48/2015 in W.P.No.16107 of 2014 filed by the respondent. For Review Applicant:-Mr.S.T.S.Murthi, Addl.Advocate General Assisted by Mr.P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram Special Govt. Pleader4 For respondents :- Mr.R.Thanjan for R1 Mr.Nizar Ahamed for R2 COMMON ORDER (Order was made by Huluvadi G.Ramesh,J.) The Review Application is filed by the State as against the order passed in Review Application No.48 of 2015 in W.P.No.16107 of 2014. The Contempt petition is filed by R.V.Kamala, who is the third party and who already filed contempt petition Nos.1138 and 2371 of 2015, praying to punish the respondents for flouting the order of this court
dated 27.03.2015 passed in M.P.No.2 of 2015 in Rev.P.No.48/2015 and the order dated 14.07.2014 passed in W.P.No.16107 of 2014.
2. In W.P.No.16107 of 2014, filed by S.Ramakrishnan, seeking to restore 10.00 acres in S.No.89/1, 155, Paiyanur Village and Post, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, as Anadeenam land and to consequently forbear the SubRegistrar, Thiruporur and the Inspector General of Registration, from registering any document creating encumbrance in the above said land, this, court, by order dated 14.07.2014, directed the respondents-State to complete the process of removal of names of private individuals from chitta in respect of S.No.89/1, 155, Paiyanur Village and Post, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
3. Thereafter, in Review Application No.48 of 2015, filed by Mrs.R.V.Kamala/third party, who claims that in her husband's favour, a sale deed has been registered and subsequently, the said property in question was given in her favour, submitted that she had not been heard by the respondents/state before cancelling the patta and before changing the classification of the land as Anadheenam land.
4. This court, by order dated 18.03.2016, in Rev.App.No.48 of 2015 and Cont.Petition Nos.1138 and 2371
of 2015, passed the following order:- "10. The facts as narrated above speak for themselves. It is a clear case of fraud and suppression of facts attributed to the 1st respondent. Being the owner of the property and having alienated the same, he has no right, whatsoever, ti file the writ petition to treat it as an Anadheenam land. The factum of his earlier ownership following execution of registered deed have been suppressed deliberately. It is a clear case of abuse of process of law. The applicant has not been heard pursuant to the orders passed by this court. Strangely, she has not been made as a party respondent. Therefore, we have no hesitation in recalling the order passed on 14.07.2014.
11. Accordingly, the review application stands allowed and the order dated 14.07.2014 passed in w.P.No.16107 of 2014 stands recalled. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Since but for the order dated 14.07.2014 passed by this Court, patta stood in favour of the review applicant would not have been cancelled, the official respondents are directed to restore the patta as it stood in favour of the review applicant before the passin gof the order dated 14.07.2014. Such an exercise has to be done by the official respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
For the conduct and untenable behaviour of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, a costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand
only) has been ordered to be paid to the review applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the Contempt Petitions and miscellaneous petitions are closed."
5. Now, by way of second round of litigation, R.V.Kamala, filed Contempt Petition No.1629 of 2016, seeking to punish the respondents/State for flouting the order of this court dated 18.03.2016 passed in Rev.App.No.48/2015 in W.P.No.16107/2015.
6. The State has also come on Review No.741 of 2016 against the recall order passed in Rev.App.No.48 of 2015. The affidavit filed by the District Collector dated 26 October 2016 in respect of Cont.Petition No.1629 of 2016, is taken on record. In the said affidavit, it is stated as under:- " 23. It is respectfully submitted that while passing the order in Review Petition No.48 of 2015 all the above said material facts (by mistake/as the records were not readily available/by inadvertence) were omitted to be brought to the notice of this Honourable Court. It is respectfully submitted that neither Review Petitioner nor her husband have no manner of right, title or interest in the disputed property, since the alleged predecessors in title themselves have no manner
of right, title or interest to convey the "ANADEENAM LAND" to convey the same. It is further submitted that the Review Petitioner has approached this Honourable Court with unclean hands and committed a fraud and suppressed the material fact that the disputed property was already taken over by Government and classified as "ANADEENAM LAND" under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 26 of 1948 and the Patta has been issued subject to result of the outcome of pending case. Moreover, as the alleged predecessors in title himself has not challenged the order passed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration rejecting the Revision Petition No.1 of 2001, has become final as against the said Mr.S.Ramakrishnan and his alleged vendor Mr.K.Raghavan. "
7. Mr.S.T.S.Murthi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, submitted that by order dated 15.05.1997, the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, has passed an order in Revision Petition No.22 of 1996 setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai and to maintain the disputed land as "ANADHEENAM LAND".
8. This Court, in Review Application No.48 of 2015, held that the applicant/R.V.Kamala has not been heard
pursuant to the orders passed by this court, and strangely she has not been made as a party respondent. Further, ordered the official respondents to restore the patta as it stood in favour of the review applicant/R.V.Kamala.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the contempt petitioner/R.V.Kamala, submitted that even after this court had directed the state authorities/official respondents, to do the needful, the contempt petitioner/R.V.Kamala, was not heard so far and no patta has been issued.
10. After going through the typed set of papers and all material records, we are of the considered view that the question of issuance of patta arises only in the event of the land in dispute belongs to the petitioner as per the available records. On the other hand, if the land is "ANADHEENAM LAND" issuance of patta itself, does not arise.
11. Therefore, it is the duty of the state authorities to go through all the records carefully and hear the petitioner's grievance and if need be, seek for documents from the contempt petitioner herein. In such an event, the contempt petitioner/R.V.Kamala, shall produce the documents, in proof of her contention and seek for issuance of patta.
12. Only on production of appropriate and necessary records, the authorities have to decide, whether the land in dispute is a patta land or Anadheenam land. The authorities are directed to complete the exercise issued by this court, by proper verification of the documents and decide it whether the same are genuine or otherwise and do the needful in accordance with law. To enable the authorities to complete the above said exercise, we direct the authorities/Review Applicants, to take up the case of the contempt petitioner/R.V.Kamala, on 30.11.2016 and on that day, the contempt petitioner is also directed to appear before the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, and submit all the records and submit her contentions in support of her case.
13. With the above direction, Cont.Petition No.1629 of 2016 and Review Application No.141 of 2016 are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
nvsri SD/ JOINT REGISTRAR(OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2016. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
CO/21/11/2016 One CC to Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, Advocate, SR.14755/2016 Two CC's to MR.R.Thanjan, Advocate, SR.14844/2016 One CC to Government Pleader, SR.14818/2016 To 1.The District Collector Kancheepuram District.
2.The Tahsildar Thiruporur Taluk Kancheepuram District.
3.The Sub Registrar Thiruporur.
4.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome Chennai-600 004.