S.Chandra v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 31/10/2022 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR a n d M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 S. Chandra ...
Petitioner Vs
1. The Commissioner Municipal Administration Local Administration Ministry Fort St. George Chennai 600 005.
2. The District Collector Cuddalore District.
3. The Municipal Commissioner Chidambaram Municipality Cuddalore District.
4. The Sub-Registrar Sub-Registrar Office Chidambaram Cuddalore District.
5. K. Kannapiran
6. N. Hariharanaganathan ...
Respondents Page No:1/6
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order of the third respondent dated 7/2/2014 bearing Pe.Mam.No.20/2014/A2 and quash the same.
For petitioner ...
Mr.S.A.Shanmugam For respondents ...
Mr.D.Gopal Government Advocate for R.R.1 and 2.
Mr.V.Kasinathabharathi for R.3.
Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan Government Advocate for R.4.
Mr.M.Prabhakar for R.5.
Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Ms.A.l.Ganthimathi for R.6.
- - - - - Page No:2/6
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the third respondent, dated 7/2/2014.
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:- The petitioner inherited the house site measuring 2401 Sq.feet bearing Town Survey No.859, Block No.9, situated at 10/3 Angalamman Koil Street, Chidambaram from his mother, by way of a registered Settlement Deed, dated 9/1/1991 and 6/2/1991. Thereafter, muted all the revenue records, viz., property tax, water tax, electricity connection, etc. On 6/7/2005, fifth respondent had created a false document and executed the sale in favour of the sixth respondent. Despite the representations, dated 3/10/2013 and 30/12/2013, given by the petitioner, before the third and second respondent, respectively, document has been registered. To quash the same, the petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition.
3. Heard Mr.S.A.Shanmugam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.Gopal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2, Page No:3/6
Mr.V.Kasinathabharathi, learned counsel for R.3, Mr.K.Tippu Sultan, learned Government Advocate for the fourth respondent, Mr.M.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in spite of his detailed representations, seeking not to transfer the property in favour of sixth respondent, third respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 7/2/2013, without conducting any enquiry.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent submitted that they are the purchaser of the property and only based on the tile, Proceeding has been passed. He further submitted that Civil Suit is pending in S.A.No.59 of 2014.
6. Perused the materials available on record.
7. The very writ petition itself is filed with regard to the title and the same has been seized by the Civil Court and now culminated into Second Page No:4/6
Appeal, this Court is of the view that since the civil right is involved, title is also disputed by each of the parties, same should be decided by the Civil Court.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Rights of the parties depend upon the judgment of the Civil Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 31/10/2022 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order mvs.
Page No:5/6
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J mvs.
To
1. The Commissioner Municipal Administration Local Administration Ministry Fort St. George Chennai 600 005.
2. The District Collector Cuddalore District.
3. The Municipal Commissioner Chidambaram Municipality Cuddalore District.
4. The Sub-Registrar Sub-Registrar Office Chidambaram Cuddalore District.
W.P.No.7912 of 2014 31/10/2022 Page No:6/6