Infovision Private Limited and Others vs Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount Police Station and Others

C.S. Karnan, J.—The history of the case are as follows:

The revision petitioner herein/C-party viz., Infovision Private Limited, has filed the above revision against the order passed in M.C. No. Na. Ka.

4761 of 2009, on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, dated 1.4.2010. The Inspector of

Police/complainant, who is attached to the S-1, St. Thomas Mount Police Station had registered a criminal case in Crime No. 1128 of 2009,

dated 24.10.2009, stating that the ''A'' party viz., Mr. Thirumaniselvam, S/o. Kuppusamy Naddar, on 16.10.2009 at about 10 a.m., had preferred

to raise a wall in the property in Survey No. 16/7, an extent of 18 cents in Alandur Village. The ''B'' party viz., Mr. S.B. Velayudham, S/o.

Sabapathi and his men came to the said property and threatened the ''A'' party''s Security Guard, one Mr. Vetriselvam. Hence, said Vetriselvam

had given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, S-1 Police Station, St. Thomas Mount, to take action against the ''B'' party. On receipt of the

said complaint, the Inspector had issued C.S.R. No. 512 of 2009 and taken the complaint for enquiry. The said complaint further reveals that on

16.10.2009, the ''A'' party had prevented the ''B'' party and his 11 men to enter into the property and had driven them out. Hence, the ''B'' party

had levelled a criminal case before the Inspector of Police and requested him to take action against the ''A'' party and his men and the ''B'' party

have prayed to give adequate protection to them. On receipt of the said complaint, the Inspector of Police had issued C.S.R. No. 513 of 2009,

and taken the case for investigation.

Under the circumstances, the ''C'' party viz., Rajakumar, power agent of Gobichandran against Pankajammal, Ramani, Kesava Murthy and others

had destroyed the gate of the property with deadly weapons and had also threatened the watchman, Chakrapani, who was deployed at the

property on behalf of ''C'' party. Hence, a criminal case has been registered in Crime No. 72 of 2009, for the offence under Sections, 147, 148,

341, 324, 427 and 506(2) of I.P.C. The said case is pending investigation.

The ''D'' party viz., Mr. M. Farooq, had lodged a complaint on 16.10.2009, stating that the Survey Nos. 16 to 21 an extent of 150 grounds and

door No. 24, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai-32 is in his possession and his being enjoyed by him for the past 20 years. Hence, he urged the

Inspector of Police to give protection to his life and property and protection to his men. Each of the four parties have stated that they are the owner

of the property and that they possess title deeds. Under these dire circumstances, the Inspector of Police had cautioned all the parties not to

breach the law and order prevailing in and around the said property. Besides this, each of the four parties had attempted to trespass into the

properties with their men respectively. Hence, the Inspector of Police had requested the Revenue Taluk Tahsildar, Tambaram to conduct enquiry

and verify the respective party''s document and also requested him to give his findings regarding the actual owner of the property.

While so, a tense situation was prevailing over the said property. Therefore, the Inspector opined that there was an imminent possibility for

disturbance of law and order and that this would cause breach of peace to the public. Therefore, the Inspector had made the petition before the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram to conduct enquiry with all the parties and verify their documents and decide the issue. The said petition

was filed on 24.10.2009, along with first information report.

After receipt of the petition from the Inspector of Police, and on perusing the F.I.R., which was pending on the file of Inspector of Police, the

R.D.O. felt that due to the tension situation prevailing over the property due to the dispute among the parties, peace of the public would be

disturbed. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer had decided to conduct an enquiry. Hence, he issued summons to ''A'' ''B'', ''C'' and ''D''

party, and asked them to appear before him on 24.11.2009, at 11 a.m., with necessary documents and written statements. This order was passed

u/s 145(1) of Cr.P.C., dated 16.11.2009. On the very same day, status quo order was also passed. ''A'' party, ''B'' and ''C'' party had submitted

counter statements and also had produced their supporting documents. ''D'' party had neither filed written statement nor cross-examined the rival

parties.

The ''C'' party had filed statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalput, Kancheepuram District. The contentions made by them

are that:

(i) they along with one Satyam Foods Ltd., and S.N.J. Properties Management Pvt. (Ltd.,) (Group Companies) are the absolute owners of an

extent of 18 cents of land comprised in S. No. 16/7 of Alandur Village, Tambaram TK, Kancheepuram District. The above properties also forms

part of a larger extent of land in all admeasuring 150 grounds or thereabouts purchased in the names of various individuals/companies of the MVR

Group during the period 1988-1990, (Annexure-1). An extent of approximately 120 grounds of land out of the said properties including an extent

of 14 cents (out of 18 cents) comprised in S. No. 16 of 2007 of Alandur Village, Tambaram TK, Kancheepuram District, was mortgaged by the

respective owners to the Indian Bank ever since the date of purchase so as to enable certain companies to avail financial facilities.

(ii) that in 1996, Indian Bank filed suits against the borrower companies as well as the owners of the 120 grounds (mortgagors) before the DRT-I,

Chennai for the recovery of the amounts due to them. In pursuance thereof, the Indian Bank had published a ""Public Notice"" in the leading news

papers in 1997 informing the General Public that the said properties were under mortgage to them (Annexure-2). From 2002, onwards, the Indian

Bank had appointed their security personnel in the property to safeguard the same. In January 2005, Indian Bank initiated proceedings against the

mortgaged properties (120 grounds) under the SARFAESI ACT by publishing a ""Demand Notice"" u/s 13(2) in the leading news papers

(Annexure-3). Subsequently, Indian Bank took possession of the mortgaged properties in March 2005 u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI ACT by

publishing a ""Possession Notice"" in the leading news papers, (Annexure-4).

(iii) that thereafter, by an Assignment Agreement dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure-5), Indian Bank assigned the Secured Financial Assets including the

mortgaged properties admeasuring 120 grounds (inclusive of 14 cents comprised in S. No. 16/7) to the Asset Reconstruction Company (India)

Ltd., (ARCIL), Mumbai under the provisions of SARFAESI ACT. ARCIL being a Securitization and Asset Reconstruction Company registered

u/s 3 of the SARFAESI ACT, has stepped into the shoes of Indian Bank as a Secured Creditor and a mortgagee of the said properties. ARCIL

was also put in possession of the mortgaged properties by the Indian Bank in pursuance of the said assignment and they continue to be in

possession thereof till date, jointly with the respective owners. ARCIL has also appointed ITCOT Consultancy Services, a Government of Tamil

Nadu undertaking as the custodian of the said properties and the security personnel appointed by ITCOT are available in the property along with

the security of the owners.

(iv) that the dispute which is now sought to be preferred for adjudication before the learned Revenue Divisional Officer is the claim of possession

by various parties in respect of 18 cents of land comprised in S. No. 16/7 of Alandur Village. It is found that, apart from ourselves (C-party) other

parties viz., (1) K. Thirumaniselvam (A-party), (2) S.P. Velayutham (B-party) and (3) M. Farook (D-party) are claiming possession over the said

properties. The claims made by the said parties are frivolous claims made on the strength of bogus, concocted and fabricated documents. The said

claimants do not have any right, title or interest in and upon the said properties in any manner whatsoever.

(v) that the property comprised in S. No. 16/7 of Alandur Village, originally formed part of the estate of one V. Devarajulu Reddiyar @ Deva

Reddiyar son of Lakshmana Reddiyar. In 1947 one of his sons filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 73 of 1947 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengalput for

partition and separate possession. A final decree was passed in the above suit on 1979 (Annexure-6) and the said property was partitioned and

allotted in favour of the following persons:

(1) Mr. D. Venkatrama Reddiyar

(2) Mr. V. Devarajulu Reddiyar

(3) Mr. D. Ananthasayana Reddiyar

(4) Mr. D. Purushothama Reddiyar

(5) Mr. D. Sriramulu Reddiyar.

(v)(a) that virtue of the final decree passed in the partition suit in O.S. No. 73 of 1947, Plot Nos. 4 and 5 admeasuring 3.52 cents (1535 sq. ft.)

each was allotted to D. Venkatrama Reddiyar and D. Sriramulu Reddiyar sons of V. Devarajulu Reddiyar respectively. The above persons

subsequently sold their respective extents to and in favour of one Rafeek Erikil Thavath vide sale deeds dated 28.9.1988 bearing Doc. Nos. 3620

of 1988 and 3621 of 1988 before the SRO, Alandur (Annexure-7 series). The said Rafeek Erikil Thavath sold the said extents to one H. Arul

Manalan and V. Rajkumar vide registered sale deeds dated 12.10.1990 and registered as Doc. No. 3152 of 1990 and 3153 of 1990 before the

SRO, Alandur (Annexure-8 series). Subsequently the said H. Arul Manalan sold his extent of 1535 sq. ft. (3.52 cents) to Infovision Pvt. Ltd., vide

sale deed dated 4.4.1994 and registered as Doc. No. 2924 of 1994 before S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-9). Thus Mr. V. Rajkumar and Infovision

Pvt. Ltd., are the absolute owners of the said extents of land and are in continuous possession and enjoyment thereof.

(v)(b) that an extent of 3.52 cents formed part of the properties allotted to the share of D. Ananthasayana Reddiyar S/o. V. Devarajulu Reddiyar

by virtue of the final decree passed in O.S. No. 73 of 1947. The said D. Ananthasayana Reddiyar died intestate on 20.5.1982 leaving behind his

wife and 6 children as his legal heirs. The said legal heirs of late D. Ananthasayana Reddiyar sold the said extent to one Ms. K. Malarovium (MVR

Group) on 30.1.1990 and registered as Doc. No. 9 of 1990 before the Sub Registrar of Alandur (Annexure-10). The said Ms. Malarovium

subsequently executed a sale deed in favour of Infovision Pvt. Ltd., dated 4.4.1994 and registered as Doc. No. 2926 of 1994 before the S.R.O.,

Alandur (Annexure-11). Thus Infovision Pvt. Ltd., is the absolute owner of the above extent and is in possession and enjoyment of the same ever

since the date of purchase.

(v)(c) that an extent of 3.44 cents (1500 sq ft) was allotted to the share of D. Purushothama Reddiyar, S/o. Devarajulu Reddiyar under the Final

Decree passed in the partition suit in O.S. No. 73 of 1947. Subsequently D. Purushothama Reddiyar died leaving behind his legal heirs P.

Santhanakrishnan and P. Ramamurthy. The said persons sold the above extent to one Sethuraman by a sale deed dated 29.8.1990 and registered

as Doc. No. 2614 of 1990 before the S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-12). The said M. Sethurman subsequently sold the above extent to Satyam

Foods Pvt., Ltd., by a sale deed dated 4.4.1994 and registered as Doc. No. 2927 of 1994 before the S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-13). Thus

Satyam Foods Pvt., Ltd., is the absolute owner of the above extent and is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same ever since the date

of purchase.

(v)(d) that an extent of 4 cents (1744 sq ft) was allotted to the share of V. Devarajulu Reddiyar under the Final Decree in O.S. No. 73 of 1947.

The said V. Devarajulu Reddiyar sold the above extent to Tmt. Govindammal by a sale deed dated 24.8.1973 and registered as Doc. No. 1430

of 1973 (Annexure-14). Tmt. Govindammal executed a last Will and Testament dated 15.2.1984 bequeathing the above property in favour of Mr.

A. Balasundaram, her nephew and foster son Tmt. Govindammal died issueless on 18.2.1994 and Mr. A. Balasundaram became the absolute

owner of the above property. He subsequently sold the above extent to one S. Srinivasa Raghavan by a sale deed dated 28.8.1995 registered as

Doc. No. 2466 of 1995 before the S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-15). The said Srinivasa Raghavan subsequently sold the said extent to Model

Electronics Technik Pvt. Ltd., by a sale deed dated 17.1.1997 and registered as Doc. No. 74 of 1997 before the S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-

16). The said company subsequently sold the above extent to S.N.J. Properties Management Pvt. Ltd., by a sale deed dated 9.1.2008 and

registered as Doc. No. 59 of 2008 before S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-17). Thus S.N.J. Properties Management Pvt. Ltd., is the absolute owner

of the above property.

(vi) that from the above it is clear that Infovision Pvt. Ltd., Mr. V. Rajkumar, Satyam Foods Pvt. Ltd., and S.N.J. Properties Management Private

Ltd., are the absolute owners of the 18 cents of land comprised in S. No. 16/7 of Alandur Village. An extent of 14 cents out of the said properties

was mortgaged to the Indian Bank by the respective owners so as to enable two companies viz., Jaimatha Farm Dealers Pvt. Ltd., and Ramraj

Trading Company to avail loans from the Indian Bank in the year 1995. Under the recovery suits filed by the Indian Bank before the Debts

Recovery Tribunal, Chennai against these companies O.A. No. 12 and 14 of 1996 on the file of D.R.T-II, Chennai, the aforesaid extent of 14

cents mortgaged to them is shown as a security in the hands of the bank (Annexure-18 series).

(vii) that it is also penitent that the respective owners of the entire 160 grounds of land (including the extents in S.No. 16/7 of Alandur Village) are

holding, joint Revenue Pattas in their names and have also obtained Town Survey Pattas for almost 70 Grounds (Annexure-19 series). The names

of the respective owners are also found entered in Chitta, Adangal and other Revenue Records pertaining to the properties (Annexure-20 series).

Similarly, the purchase transactions of these properties by the respective owners from the year 1988 onwards are clearly reflected in the

Encumbrance Certificates pertaining to the properties (Annexure-21 series). The Land Tax in respect of the properties were also regularly paid

upto the year 2002 (Annexure-22 series) by the owners and thereafter in 2006-07, when the owners attempted to remit the tax for the balance

period, the then Tahsildar, Mr. Subbiah and the Dy. Tahsildar Mr. Gnanam refused to receive the same on frivolous grounds.

(viii) (a) that the A-party K. Thirumaniselvam, S/o. Karuppaiah Nadar claims to be in possession of the disputed extent comprised in S. No. 16/7

of Alandur Village on the strength of an Agreement of Sale dated 2.3.2009 entered into with one R. Pankajammal W/o. Ramasamy Reddiyar,

represented by her Power Agents P. Nagaraj and B. Murali. The said Ms. R. Pankajammal is a land grabber who has been attempting to grab C-

party''s property by creating forged and fabricated documents for the past two years. The said Ms. R. Pankajammal is claiming title over the 18

cents comprised in S. No. 16/7 by way of ""Enjoyment Rights"" as the Daughter-in-law of one V. Deva Reddiyar, S/o. Venkatachala Reddiyar who

is said to be the original owner of the properties. However, the actual owner of the property was one V. Devarajulu Reddiyar @ Deva Reddiyar

son of one Lakshmana Reddiyar and the said V. Devarajulu Reddiyar had four sons viz., (1) L. Venkatrama Reddiyar, (2) L. Ananthasayana

Reddiyar, (3) L. Purushothama Reddiyar and (4) L. Sriramulu Reddiyar who are the C-party''s predecessors in title to the said property.

(viii) (b) that the said Ms. R. Pankajammal, misrepresenting that L. Deva Reddiyar had only one son by the name of Ramasamy Reddiyar, who

was her husband set up false claim over the property by fabricating an ""Enjoyment Certificate"" purportedly issued by an office titled as ""Uthavi

Aanayar Aluvalaham"" at Tiruvannamalai on 20.6.1969 (Annexure-23) certifying that she is the wife of one Ramasamy Reddiyar who was the only

son of V. Deva Reddiyar S/o. Venkatachala Reddiyar who was the owner of the property comprised in S. No. 16/7, Pimash No. 36 of Alandur

Village admeasuring 18 cents and that she is entitled to obtain patta for the said extent in her name.

(viii) (c) that it is pertinent that the said ""Enjoyment Certificate"" is nothing but a fabricated and concocted document for the following reasons:

(1) The Certificate is dated 20.6.1969, whereas the date on the seal as well as below the signature of the authority reads as 15.6.1969 which was

a SUNDAY and a public holiday;

(2) The round seal does not match with the round seals used by the Government Departments;

(3) The authority who had purportedly issued the said certificate was not vested with the power or the authority to issue such a certificate to any

person;

(4) During the year 1969 or subsequently, no such office called ""Udhave Aanayar Aluvalaham"" was in existence at Tiruvannamalai.

(5) Subsequently, only an office of the said Assistant Settlement Officer was established in Thiruvannamalai in the year 1974.

(viii) (d) that it is therefore evident that the aforesaid ""Enjoyment Certificate"" is nothing but a fabricated and forged document created by the said

Ms. R. Pankajammal to set up a false claim over our properties. Apart from the above fabricated certificate, the said R. Pankajammal is not in a

possession of any other title documents pertaining to the property nor was she in possession and enjoyment of the same at any point of time. On

the contrary, the extent of 18 cents was purchased by C-party during the year 1988-1990 from the four sons of V. Devarajulu Reddiyar @ Deva

Reddiyar who is the real predecessor in the title to the said properties as enumerated in para 5 above which would clearly establish that they along

with the two other co-owners are the absolute owners of the said extents. Therefore, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer should ascertain the

genuineness of the said ""Enjoyment Certificate"" and can direct criminal action to be initiated against the said persons for forging and fabricating a

Government document and attempting to use the same as genuine, based on which the claim of possession made by the said persons can be

rejected.

(viii) (e) that the said Ms. R. Pankajammal started executing various agreements and power of attorneys in favour of different persons starting from

February 2008 in respect of the 18 cents of the land in S. No. 16/7 of Alandur Village with a view to grab the valuable properties. Since the

disputed properties are facing the G.S.T. Road and is the main access to the larger property of 15 grounds owned by their Group, they had

constructed a compound wall facing the G.S.T. Road and had also put up a gate facing the G.S.T. Road, in the month of August 2008 with a view

to protect the property (Annexure-24). However, the said Ms. R. Pankajammal executed the following frivolous documents in favour of various

third parties starting from 20.2.2008 till 5.3.2009.

(1) Power of Attorney dated 20.2.2008 executed by R. Pankajammal in favour of Mr. Kesavamurthy and Ms. Ramani registered as Doc. No.

328 of 2008-S.R.O., Alandur.

(2) Agreement of sale dated 4.3.2008 between R. Pankajammal rep. by her power agents Mr. Kesavamurthy and Ms. Ramani and Mr. H.S.

Anand, Coimbatore, registered as Doc. No. 764 of 2008-S.R.O., Alandur.

(3) Settlement Deed dated 14.10.2008 executed by R. Pankajammal in favour of her brother P. Pakkirisamy registered as Doc. No. 2942 of

2008-S.R.O., Alandur.

(4) Deed of Revocation of Settlement dated 29.12.2008 executed by R. Pankajammal registered as Doc. No. 30 of 2009-S.R.O., Alandur.

(5) Agreement of Sale dated 29.12.2008 between R. Pankajammal and S. Ravichandran registered as Doc. No. 31 of 2009-S.R.O., Alandur.

(6) Power of Attorney dated 26.2.2009 executed by R. Pankajammal in favour of Mr. P. Nagaraj and Mr. B. Murali registered as Doc. No. 184

of 2009-S.R.O., Alandur.

(7) Agreement of sale dated 2.3.2009 between R. Pankajammal rep. by her Power Agents Mr. P. Nagaraj and Mr. B. Murali and Mr. K.

Thirumaniselvam, registered as Doc. No. 436 of 2009-S.R.O., Alandur.

(8) Lease Agreement dated 5.3.2009 between R. Pankajammal rep. by her power agents Mr. P. Nagarajan and Mr. B. Murali and Mr. P.

Ravikumar.

(viii) (f) that a perusal of the various documents executed by Ms. R. Pankajammal mentioned above, claiming to be the owner of the disputed

extents would clearly show that the same have been created for the purpose of grabbing C-party''s valuable properties. In fact, in February 2009,

the said R. Pankajammal, Ms. Ramani and H.S. Anand (the agreement holder) with the help of rowdy elements and Gundas, attempted to trespass

and take possession of the disputed properties by breaking open a gate facing the G.S.T. Road and the same was prevented by them by lodging a

complaint with the S-1, St. Thomas Police Station. An F.I.R. No. 72 of 2009, dated 5.2.2009 is also registered and pending investigation on the

file of the S-1, St. Thomas Police Station against the said persons (Annexure-25). They also filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2008 against Ms.

R. Pankajammal, H.S. Anand, Ms. Ramani and others on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur for a Permanent injunction and the same is

still pending (Annexure-26 series).

(viii) (g) that after the F.I.R. was registered by the S-1, St. Thomas Mount Police Station, the said persons did not make any further attempt to

interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the disputed property. At the same time, the said Ms. R. Pankajammal executed a fresh power of

attorney in favour of one P. Nagaraj and B. Murali on 26.2.2009 who in turn fabricated an agreement of sale dated 2.3.2009 with Mr. K.

Thirumaniselvam (A-party). It is pertinent that while executing the power of attorney dated 26.2.2009, the earlier power of attorney executed by

Ms. R. Pankajammal in favour of Kesavamoorthy and Ms. Ramani on 20.2.2008 and the sale agreements entered into with H.S. Anand of

Coimbatore on 20.2.2008 and one S. Ravichandran on 29.12.2008 were not cancelled. It is therefore evident that the aforesaid documents are

fabricated and concocted documents created for the sole purpose of encumbering their property in various ways and it is on the strength of the

fabricated sale agreement dated 2.3.2009 entered into with Ms. R. Pankajammal that K. Thirumaniselvam (A-party) is now claiming possession

over the disputed extents.

(viii) (h) that the claim of K. Thirumaniselvam (A-party) is proven false and stands defeated by the subsequent actions of Ms. R. Pankajammal

herself since after fabricating the agreement of sale dated 2.3.2009 with Mr. K. Thirumaniselvam (A-party), Ms. R. Pankajammal represented by

her power agents P. Nagaraj and B. Murali purportedly entered into a lease agreement dated 5.3.2009 with one P. Ravikumar, who now claims

to be in possession of the property. The said P. Ravikumar, S/o. Periyasamy has filed a suit in O.S. No. 704 of 2009 against Ms. R. Pankajammal

and others, before the District Munsif Court at Alandur praying for permanent injunction and the same is dismissed as vexatious. (Annexure-27

series).

(viii) (i) that therefore the said R. Pankajammal is none other than an unscrupulous land grabber who has no right, title, interest or possession in and

upon the 18 cents of lands comprised in S. No. 16/7 of Alandur Village and therefore any person including Mr. K. Thirumaniselvam (A-party)

claiming under the said Ms. R. Pankajammal cannot derive any right, title, interest or possession over the said properties in any manner

whatsoever. Therefore, the claim of A-party, Mr. K. Thirumaniselvam that he is possession of the properties on the strength of the sale agreement

dated 2.3.2009 entered into with Ms. R. Pankajammal is absolutely frivolous and the same has to be rejected.

(ix) (a) that the B-party S.P. Velayutham, S/o. Sabapathy claims to be in possession of the disputed extents comprised in S. No. 16/7 of Alandur

Village as the owner of the same. He claims title to the disputed property as well as an extent of approximately 100 grounds out of the total extent

of 160 grounds owned by the M.V.R. Group in Alandur Village comprised in S. Nos. 16 to 19 and 21 including the disputed extents comprised in

S. No. 16/7 by virtue of a settlement deed purportedly executed by his own son V. Amar in his favour in the year 2009, who in turn had

purportedly purchased the said properties from one K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son D. Venkatakrishnan in 2007. However, all the said

documents are forged, fabricated, concocted and void documents which do not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the said S.P.

Velayutham in any manner whatsoever. The claim of possession of the disputed property by S.P. Velayutham is also on the strength of certain

forged and fabricated documents purportedly entered into with M. Farook (D-party) with the sole intention of grabbing the valuable properties.

The claim of S.P. Velayutham (B-party) can be proved to be false on the basis of the following facts:

(1) The father of the said K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar, one K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar purchased various extents of lands in Alandur and

Kodambakkam villages from one I. Loganatha Reddiyar on 22.12.1937 by a sale deed registered as Doc. No. 2061 of 1937.

(2) The said K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar settled an extent of 5 acres in Alandur Village in favour of K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his wife one

Lalitha Kumari as a conditional settlement to take effect after his life time, by a deed of settlement dated 16.9.1942, registered as Doc. No. 170 of

1943.

(3) The said K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar revoked the settlement on 2.3.1949 by a deed of revocation of settlement, registered as Doc. No. 383 of

1949 due to non fulfillment of the pre-conditions by the settlees, whereby the said K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar continued to remain the owner of the

said properties.

(4) During the period 1949 to 1969 K.P. Sriramulur Reddiyar sold various extents of lands owned by him and was left with only an extent of 2.3

acres of lands in S. Nos. 16/20, 18/2, 18/5A, 19/2, 19/4 and 21/3 of Alandur Village.

(5) On 26.5.1969, the said K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar gifted an extent of four cents out of the said lands to Alandur Municipality for road

development vide a Gift Deed bearing Doc. No. 437 of 1969 and was left holding the balance extent of 1.99 acres.

(6) On 16.6.1969 K.P. Sriramulur Reddiyar sold 12 cents of land to one P. Thiruvengadam vide sale deed bearing Doc. No. 67 of 1969 and was

left holding an extent of 1.87 acres.

(7) On 2.12.1977 K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar and his five sons entered into partition in respect of the remaining 1.87 acres of land in Alandur

Village, whereunder one of his sons, K.S. Deenadayalur Reddiyar received a total extent of 31 cents out of the said property towards his share.

The said partition deed was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar of Alandur on 2.12.1977 itself and admitted execution by all the

parties and the same was kept as a pending document for payment of deficit stamp duty.

(8) On 14.9.1978, the said Mr. K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar filed a return before the Urban Land Ceiling authorities declaring that the total extent of

lands held by him and his family in Alandur Village is only 1.87 acres, (In R.S. Nos. 16/20 36 cents, 18/2 44 cents, 18/5A 58 cents, 19/214 cents,

19/426 cents and 21/39 cents) apart from a house property and that a partition deed entered into between himself and his five sons is pending

registration with the Sub-Registrar of Alandur (Annexure-28).

(9) The said K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar died on 23.9.1979 and thereafter on 7.10.1980, his son K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar received back the

partition deed from the S.R.O., Alandur, after making payment of the deficit stamp duty, registered as Doc. No. 2124 of 1980 (Annexure-29).

(10) After the demise of K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar his share of the property under the partition (31 cents) devolved upon his 6th son Kalyanarama

Reddiyar as per the terms of the partition deed. Thus, the 6 sons of K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar were each left holding approximately 31 cents of land

in Alandur Village in pursuance of the said partition.

(11) During 1985-86, the 6 sons of K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar including K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar sold their respective extents received under

the partition to one K.V. Subramaniam, Salammal, Govinda Reddy, Padmavathy Ammal and G. Kesavalu vide sale deeds bearing Doc. Nos.

3660 of 1985, 3659 of 1985, 231 of 1986, 232 of 1986, 3661 of 1985, 3658 of 1985, 261 of 1986, 234 of 1986 and 3662 of 1985

(Annexure-30 series).

(12) In the year 1988, the said Mr. K.V. Subramaniam and his group sold their respective extents totaling 1.87 acres to the various individuals of

the M.V.R. Group viz., 1) G. Prbhakaran, 2) M. Jayaraman, 3) K.R. Krishnan and 4) M. Subramaniam vide sale deeds registered as Doc. 2545

of 1988, 2546 of 1988, 2537 of 1988, 2539 of 1988, 2540 of 1988, 2551 of 1988 and 2551 of 1988 (Annexure-31 series).

(ix) (b) that from the above, it is clear that the 6 sons of K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar including K.S. Deenadayau Reddiyar had sold the entire extent

of 1.87 acres of lands held by their father in Alandur Village to their predecessors in title during 1985-1986 and thereafter the nominees of M.V.R.

Group had purchased the same in the year 1988. Thus the said K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar or any of the other sons of K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar

did not own any lands in Alandur Village after the year 1985. Therefore, the power of attorney executed by K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiar in favour

of S.P. Velayutham is void and any action done by the said S.P. Velayutham in pursuance of the void power of attorney is also void.

(ix) (c) that while this is so, in spite of the public knowledge that the entire extent of 150 grounds comprised in Survey Nos. 16 to 19 and 21 of

Alandur Village (including the disputed extent comprised in S. No. 16/7) was owned by the various individuals/companies of the M.V.R. Group

and in spite of the fact that the Indian Bank had taken out repeated advertisements in the leading newspapers regarding the mortgage created in

respect of the said properties in their favour, the said K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son Venkatakrishnan did not come forward to stake any

claim over the properties during the period 1985-2004. Thereafter, the said K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son Venakatakrishnan started

entering into Sale Agreements with various parties falsely claiming to be the owners of the said property in Alandur Village with a view to

encumber the same.

(ix) (d) that while this is so, in 2006, the said persons in collusion with S.P. Velayutham S/o. Sabapathi (B-party) fabricated a power of attorney

dated 23.8.2006, registered as document No. 2115 of 2006, empowering the said S.P. Velayutham to maintain an extent of 6.3.11 1/2 Cawnies

of lands (approximately 8.29 acres) purportedly owned by K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar in Alandur Village (Annexure-32). The said power of

attorney does not contemplate any power to sell or alienate the property had only empowered the attorney to maintain the property, to negotiate

with prospective purchasers and for entering into agreements in respect thereof etc. Further, the said K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son have

fraudulently executed the power of attorney in respect of properties not owned by them which also included the extent of 1.87 acres sold by the

said K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiar and his brothers in 1985 to the predecessors in title of the M.V.R. Group.

(ix) (e) that a perusal of the schedule of the property given under the power of attorney would itself show that the same is fabricated and

concocted document. The description of the properties in the schedule is made with reference to certain Pimash Numbers. No co-relating survey

numbers of the property are given in the schedule even though the properties have been allotted Survey Numbers more than 30 to 40 years back.

The reference to the properties by mentioning the Paimash numbers alone has been wantonly made for the purpose of staking a false claim over the

properties comprised in Survey Nos. 16 to 19 and 21 of Alandur Village owned by the various individuals/companies of the M.V.R. group.

(ix) (f) that it is pertinent that under the power of attorney executed by K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son Venkatakrishnan in favour of S.P.

Velayutham, the properties mentioned in the schedule with reference to pimash numbers, when correlated to the present corresponding survey

numbers would reveal that only an extent of 108 cents of lands covered in survey Nos. 16/20, 18/2, 18/5, 17/5, 21/3 and 21/4 of Alandur Village

forming part of the 160 grounds of lands owned by their group will be affected. The said extent of 108 cents covered by the aforesaid survey

numbers have been purchased by their group during the period of 1988-1989 from the respective predecessors in title, the details of which are

already enumerated herein before.

(ix) (g) that it is further pertinent that in the said 108 cents of lands covered in the aforementioned survey numbers, K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar

and his son Venkatakrishnan had title only in respect of an extent of 23 cents which formed part of the 31 cents received by them under the

partition entered into between his father and brothers in the year 1977, K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son Venkatakrishnan did not have any

right, title or interest in and upon the balance extent of 77 cents at any point of time, either prior to or after the partition. Even the entire extent of

31 cents received by them under partition (including 23 cents which is included in the power of attorney) has been sold by K.S. Deenadayalu

Reddiyar and his son Venkatakrishnan to their predecessors in title in the year 1985 itself by registered deeds of sale, the details of which are

enumerated hereunder. Thus, by any stretch of imagination, the said K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son Venkatakrishnan do not have any

right, title or interest in or upon any extent of land in Alandur Village after 1985.

(ix) (h) that therefore, the power of attorney executed by the said persons in favour of S.P. Velayutham representing to the owners of the 108

cents of land comprised in survey numbers 16/20, 18/2, 18/5, 17/5, 21/3 and 21/4 of Alandur Village through their corresponding Paimash

numbers is nothing but a false and fraudulent claim and the said power of attorney is illegal, void and non-est in law and does not confer any rights

on the said S.P. Velayutham in any manner whatsoever. In fact, under the power of attorney the description of the properties is made with

reference to the paimash numbers only while under the sale deed paimash numbers certain survey numbers which have no relation to the same are

mentioned. Therefore, it is evident that the said fraudulent power of attorney has been fabricated by the said S.P. Velayutham in collusion with

K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son Venkatakrishnan for the purpose of grabbing their valuable property and any document or deed executed

by the said S.P. Velayutham in pursuance of the said fraudulent power of attorney is also void. Therefore, the sale deed executed by the said S.P.

Velayutham as the power of attorney holder of K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son Venkatakrishnan in favour of his own son Amar is also null

and void.

(ix)(i) Subsequently, the said S.P. Velayutham representing the said K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and D. Venkatakrishnan fabricated a fraudulent

sale deed in favour of his own son V. Amar on 5.7.2007, registered as Doc. No. 2179 of 2007 before the S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-33)

purportedly conveying an extent of 9.92 acres of land in Alandur Village for a sale consideration of Rs. 5 crores. A perusal of the said sale deed

would show that the same has been executed by S.P. Velayutham on the strength of the registered power of attorney bearing Doc. No. 2115 of

2006 whereunder the power to sell has not been contemplated. Subsequently, after the lodging of the criminal complaint by them, S.P. Velayutham

in collusion with K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and Venkatakrishnan, fabricated another unregistered power of attorney to cover up the lacuna.

However, the second power of attorney dated 7.6.2007 does not find a mention under the sale deed in favour of Amar and therefore it is evident

that the same has been fabricated subsequently.

(ix)(j) that further, in Schedule-A thereunder, an extent of 6.3.11 1/2 Cawnies (8.29 acres approximately) of land referred to by paimash numbers

is mentioned while in Schedule-B thereunder, an extent of 9.92 acres of lands covered under various Survey Numbers purportedly co-relating to

the paimash numbers mentioned in Schedule-A are mentioned. In any event the extent of 6.3.11 1/2 Cawnies cannot be equal to 9.92 acres.

Further, the survey numbers of the properties sought to be conveyed under the sale deed does not co-relate with survey numbers (paimash

numbers) of the properties mentioned under the power of attorney and therefore the very sale deed in favour of V. Amar and the subsequent

settlement deed in favour of S.P. Velayutham are void, nonest in law and does not confer any right, title or interest upon them.

(ix)(k) Under the sale deed, the said persons have purportedly conveyed to V. Amar, S/o. S.P. Velayutham, an extent of 9.92 acres of lands in

Alandur Vilalge, allegedly comprised in the survey numbers mentioned in the Schedule-B thereunder, even while the properties comprised in the

said survey numbers does not have any co-relation to the properties covered under the paimash numbers mentioned in Schedule-A thereunder.

The actual survey numbers co-relating to the said paimash numbers are entirely different from the survey numbers which are mentioned in

Schedule-B. This fraud is clearly established by perusing the PIMASH NUMBER-SURVEY NUMBER co-relation chart enclosed herewith

(Annexure-34) as well as the village map and F.M.B. Sketch of Alandur Village (Annexure-35) which shows that the properties comprised in the

said Paimash numbers are situate elsewhere and nowhere near our properties. Therefore, it is clear that the said persons have knowingly

manipulated the Paimash Numbers and the Survey Numbers of the properties with the sole intention of grabbing a very valuable property owned

by their Group including the disputed extents comprised in S. No. 16/7.

(ix) (l) that it is also pertinent that K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar or his son Venkatakrishnan did not own any extents of land in Alandur Vilalge after

1985 so as to enable them to convey the same in favour of V. Amar. Further, even the father of K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar viz., K.P. Sriramulu

Reddiyar himself was owing only 1.87 acres of land in Alandur Village during the year 1977 at the time of the partition as declared by him before

the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar or his son cannot claim title over even a

cent of land in Alandur Village, much less the 9.92 acres sought to be sold to V. Amar in 2007. Further, the sale consideration shown in the said

sale deed is sham and nominal since the Guide Line Value of the properties on the date of registration is shown as Rs. 157 crores where as the sale

consideration paid by V. Amar is shown as Rs. 5 crores. Therefore, the sale deed is nothing but a fabricated document created for the purpose of

grabbing the properties.

(ix) (m) that thereafter, the said V. Amar, S/o. S.P. Velayutham, executed a settlement deed dated 13.10.2008 in respect of the said properties in

favour of his father, S.P. Velayutham himself, registered as Doc. No. 2881 of 2008 before the S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-36). This document is

also a fabricated and concocted document created for the purpose of land grabbing, by virtue of which S.P. Velayutham (B-party) is now claiming

title to the entire 100 grounds of lands owned by their Group in S. Nos. 16 to 19&21 of Alandur Village including the disputed extents in S. No.

16/7, apart from certain other properties owned by various third parties. The said S.P. Velayutham, in collusion with the certain officials of the

Alandur Municipality and the Revenue Department has managed to obtain Town Survey Patta for the properties in his name without notice to any

of the existing Pattadhars or their predecessor in title and by manipulating the records and has also managed to remit the tax in respect of the

property. Indian Bank had also addressed a letter dated 8.10.2007 addressed to the Tahsildar, Tambaram with a copy marked to the District

Collector requesting them not to issue patta to the said S.P. Velayutham (Annexure-37) as the patta obtained by S.P. Velayutham is through

fraudulent means and the same is illegal. They have also submitted their written objections to the same to the learned Revenue Divisional Officer on

28.4.2009 itself (Annexure-38).

(ix) (n) that the M.V.R. Group companies lodged a criminal complaint against the said K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar, D. Venkata Krishanan, S.P.

Velayutham, V. Amar, M. Farook and others with the Central Crime branch, Chennai Suburban Police and an F.I.R. No. 41 of 2009 dated

18.4.2009 has been registered against the said persons under the various provisions of I.P.C. and investigation is pending (Annexure-39). After

the registration of the F.I.R., the said S.P. Velayutham (B-party) colluded with M. Farook (D-party) to further fabricate documents to claim

possession over the entire property including the disputed extents comprised in S. No. 16/7.

(ix) (o) that as stated earlier, the entire 160 grounds of lands have been under the possession and enjoyment of the respective owners ever since

the date of purchase and of which an extent of 120 grounds (including 14 cents in Survey No. 16/7) have been under the joint possession of the

Indian Bank/ARCIL from the year 2005 onwards till date. While this was so, the said S.P. Velayutham and M. Farook fabricated an unregistered

agreement dated 24.6.2007 (Annexure-40) whereunder it is stated that the said M. Farook (D-party) has been in possession and enjoyment of the

properties owned by the M.V.R. Group from the time of his father and that he was putting the said S.P. Velayutham in possession of the same on

29.8.2008 after receiving the consideration mentioned thereunder. The said M. Farook does not have any right, title or interest over the property

in any manner whatsoever. The said agreement being a fabricated and concocted agreement, will not confer any right on the said S.P. Velayutham

(B-party). For the reasons stated above, the said S.P. Valayutham (B-party) cannot claim any right, title, interest or possession in respect of the

disputed extents comprised in S. No. 16/7 of Alandur Village, in any manner whatsoever and his claim has to be rejected out right.

(x) (a) that the entire extent of 150 grounds in Alandur Village comprised in Survey Nos. 16 to 19 and 21 (including the disputed extents in Survey

No. 16/7) were purchased in the names of various individuals/companies of the M.V.R. Group during the period 1988-1990. At the time of

purchase the lands were low lying with water stagnation throughout. The same was developed by the M.V.R. Group by earth filling, leveling and

raising the level of the land about the road level by spending huge amount of money and proposed to develop the properties into

Commercial/Residential buildings. The lands were also assessed under the ""Land Ceiling Act"" in the hands of the respective owners. As stated

earlier, the owners are holding joint revenue pattas covering the entire extent as well as Town Survey Pattas for almost 70 grounds. The names of

the owners also entered into the Chitta, Adangal and other Revenue Records pertaining to the properties.

(x)(b) that the M.V.R. Group availed loans from the Indian Bank originally in 1988 and subsequently in 1995 for developing the properties for

which 120 grounds was offered a mortgage. The said project could not materialize due to the other business losses suffered by the M.V.R. Group

in its Export/Import business which resulted in the Indian Bank recalling these loans also. As stated earlier, in March 2005, Indian Bank took

possession of the properties under the SARFAESI ACT and had deployed security guards along with their security guards in the property. In

2007, the M.V.R. Group arrived at negotiated one time settlement with the Indian Bank, for clearing their liabilities by selling the mortgaged

properties. At that time, various land grabbers like S.P. Velayutham Ms. R. Pankajammal and others jumped into the fray and started and forging

and fabricating documents to stake illegal claims over the properties with an intention to grab the same. The said M. Farook (D-party) is only a

mere trespasser who trespassed into the property recently to assist the said S.P. Velayutham to grab the property.

(x) (c) that in fact, M. Farook is carrying on business as a Scrap Dealer adjacent to the property of the M.V.R. Group, facing M.K.N. Road,

Alandur. He was never in possession and enjoyment of the properties belonging to the M.V.R. Group at any point of time and his claim that he has

been enjoying the said properties from the day of his father is nothing but false. He recently trespassed into a portion of the property only with a

view to encumber the same. He along with Mr. S.P. Velayutham (B-party), fabricated the unregistered agreement claiming to have put S. P.

Velayutham in possession of the same for a consideration. If the claim of M. Farook is correct, then he cannot claim to be in possession of the

property or any portion thereof after the date of the agreement with S.P. Vealayutham. Therefore, even by his own admission M. Farook (D-

party) is no longer in possession of the property and hence he is a totally unnecessary party to the present proceedings as he cannot claim to be in

possession of the properties in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, the claim of M. Farook (D-party) is nothing but a false and frivolous claim and

the same has to be rejected into to.

The ''B'' party had filed a written statement and denied the allegations made by ''A'' party. The ''B'' party stated that the said property was under

his occupation and enjoyment. The contentions of the ''A'' party stating that he tried to raise the compound wall around the property and that at

that time on behalf of the ''B'' party, one Vetriselvam and his men threatened the ''A'' party was denied. Actually, the ''B'' party is in physical

possession and is enjoying the property. The ''B'' party further stated that the ''A'' party and his 60 men had made a wrong entry and threatened

the ''B'' party''s security and driven him out of the property and had brought materials to raise the wall. Hence, the ''B'' party had levelled a case

against ''A'' party, on 16.10.2009.

The ''B'' party further stated that one Sriramulu, S/o. Perumal had purchased the land and other property from Loganatha Reddy on 22.12.1937

under a sale deed bearing No. 2061 of 1937. The patta is bearing number 7. Thereafter, the said Sriramulu had executed a settlement deed, to

and in favour of his son, Deena Dayalan Reddy and his daughter-in-law, Lalitha @ Lalitha Manohari. The settlement deed is bearing No. 170 of

1943, dated 16.9.1942, which is settlement deed was cancelled on 2.3.1949, bearing No. 383 of 1949. The said Lalitha @ Lalitha Manohari had

expired on 3.11.1972, without issues. Subsequently, Deena Dayala Reddy had become absolute owner of the property and is enjoying the same.

The patta was also transferred in the name of Deena Dayalan Reddy and the patta number is 6313 of 2007. The said Deena Dayalan Reddy and

his son. Venkatakrishnan had jointly executed a power of attorney to and in favour of the ''B'' party on 28.8.2006. The general power of attorney

is bearing document No. 2115 of 2006. In the capacity of power agent, the ''B'' party had executed a sale deed on 5.7.2007 vide document

bearing No. 2179 of 2007. The ''B'' party had also paid a sum of Rs. 9,02,350/- as urban land tax to the Government. Subsequently, the said

property had been settled to and in favour of the ''B'' party. Thereafter, the Alandur Municipality and Taluka Survey Department had conducted

enquiry and issued patta in favour of ''B'' party, vide patta bearing R.P.T. No. 13358 of 2008. The ''B'' party had paid urban land tax again on

30.3.2009, for a sum of Rs. 1,06,180/- to the Government. As such, the ''B'' party had become owner of the property and enjoying the same.

Under the circumstances, one Thirumaniselvam of ''A'' party, the power agent of one Ms. Pankajammal, had trespassed into the property on

16.10.2009. Hence, the ''B'' party had lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police. Actually, the said Pankajammal has no right over the

said property. The said Pankajammal had herself exposed that she is the owner of the property and had received advance from various persons

for sums varying from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- for sale of property. As such, the ''A'' party also had obtained power of attorney from the

said Pankajammal and based on this the ''A'' party has also claimed rights over the property. The said Pankajammal and her so-called power agent

and one Nagarajan and Murali have no rights over the said property. The said Nagarajan and Murali had also made an agreement in favour of ''A''

party alleging that they are owners of the said property.

The ''B'' party further stated that on his complaint dated 16.10.2009, the Inspector of Police had conducted an enquiry and closed the gate,

which is located in the property, brought the key, and also informed the parties that no one should enter into the property till the enquiry was over.

Under the situation, the ''C'' party viz., Mr. Ravikumar, with the support of ''A'' party had entered into the property on 7.11.2009, with about 40

persons, after breaking open the gate and occupied the property illegally after putting old materials and erected a hoarding titled as ""JR Scrape and

Plastics"". Immediately, the ''B'' party went to the police station on 7.11.2009 and informed the said unlawful activities. The Inspector replied that

an enquiry was going on before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, he refused to receive the complaint on 7.11.2009. But the same complaint

was sent to the Inspector by R.P.A.D. In order to prove the illegal activities of ''A'' party, photographs were taken and sent to the Inspector of

Police, along with the complaint.

The ''B'' party further stated that the said Pankajammal had created false documents and executed power of attorney to various persons.

Subsequently, it were cancelled. The said Pankajammal further stated that the said property was owned by one Deva Reddy and as such, she has

claimed ownership over the property. The said Pankajammal had created about 8 false documents over the said property viz.,

(i) a power of attorney had been executed in favour of one Ravichandran, registered on the file of District Registrar Office, Nagappattinam, bearing

document No. 84 of 2007, dated 24.7.2007. Subsequently, the same was cancelled on 30.1.2008. The cancellation document number is 18 of

2008.

(ii) On the strength of the registered power of attorney, the said Ravichandran had executed a sale agreement to and in favour of one Sampath

Kumar. The registered sale agreement is bearing No. 2439 of 2008 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Alandur, dated 25.8.2008. Another

registered sale agreement was executed by the power agent Ravichandran, to and in favour of Ms. Deva Manohari, which has been registered on

the file of Sub Registrar Office, Alandur as document No. 2486 of 2008, dated 29.8.2008. Subsequently, the said sale deed was cancelled on

4.9.2008 by the cancellation deed bearing No. 2540 of 2008, on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Alandur. The said Ravichandran had executed

one more registered sale agreement to and in favour of one Mr. Srinivasan. The same was registered on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Alandur as

document No. 2571 of 2008, dated 9.9.2008.

(iii) The said Pankajammal had executed another power of attorney to and in favour of one Mr. Kesavamurthy and Ms. Ramani. The said power

has been registered on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Alandur, as document No. 328 of 2008, dated 20.2.2008. The said power agents viz.,

Kesavamurthy and Ms. Ramani had executed sale agreement to and in favour of Mr. H.S. Anand, Coimbatore. The said sale agreement had been

registered on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Alandur as document No. 764 of 2008. Subsequently, the power was cancelled by the said

Pankajammal on 30.10.2008 and the cancellation power document is bearing No. 1725 of 2008.

(iv) The said Pankajammal had executed a settlement deed to and in favour of her brother, P. Pakirisamy, which has been registered on the file of

Sub-Registrar Office, Alandur as document No. 2942 of 2008, dated 14.10.2008. Subsequently, the settlement deed had been revoked through

the revocation deed in document No. 30 of 2009, on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Alandur, dated 29.12.2008.

(v) The said Pankajammal had executed a registered sale deed to and in favour of one S. Ravichandran. The said sale deed has been registered on

the file of Sub Registrar Office, Alandur as document No. 31 of 2009, dated 29.12.2008.

(vi) Again the said Pankajammal executed a power of attorney in favour of one Mr. Nagaraj and one Mr. P. Murali, which has been registered on

the file of Sub Registrar, Alandur as document No. 184 of 2009, dated 26.2.2009. The said power agents viz., P. Nagaraj and Murali had

executed a sale agreement in favour of Mr. K. Thirumaniselvam. The said deed has been registered on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Alandur as

document No. 436 of 2009. Subsequently, the power was cancelled by Ms. Pankajammal, which had been standing in the name of P. Nagaraj

and Murali vide document bearing No. 258 of 2009, dated 19.3.2009.

(vii) Another agreement was executed by the said Pankajammal, in favour of Ravichandran on 20.5.2009 vide registered document No. 1099 of

2009, on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Alandur and

(viii) Another unregistered agreement has been made between Mr. H.S. Anand and Mr. Ravikumar.

The ''B'' party further stated that the above said Ms. Pankajammal had created several false documents which are listed above. As such, the

''A'' party has no rights over the said property as his claim is based on fake documents. The ''B'' party further stated that the property is located at

G.S.T. Road, which is a prime location and the property is highly valuable one. In order to grab the said property illegally, the ''A'' party and the

said Ravikumar and others have attempted to enter into the said property. They damaged the gate of the property. The ''B'' party further stated

that while the proceedings were pending on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the ''A'' party viz., Thirumaniselvam and Ravikumar had

attempted to enter into the property, with deadly weapons, and had raised a wall in the property. As such, they have created a law and order

problem. Again, on 20.12.2009, on the instigation of Tirumaniselvam, the said Ravikumar had demolished the compound wall and put a tea stall.

The same was informed to the Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount, who closed the said tea-stall, after showing the order. Again on 1.2.2010,

the said Tirumaniselvam had opened the tea-stall, illegally and has violated the Revenue Divisional Officer''s order.

The ''B'' party further stated that the ''A'' and ''C'' parties had created problems over the said properties and have violated law and order.

Hence, the ''B'' party has entreated the Sub Divisional Magistrate to declare that the ''B'' party is in physical possession and enjoyment of the

property.

The ''A'' party viz., Mr. Tirumaniselvam had filed a written statement stating that he is running a tea-stall at No. 16, G.S.T. Main Road,

Alandur, Chennai-32, in the name and style of ''Sri Mutharamman Tea Stall''. He further stated that the property originally belonged to one Ms.

Pankajammal, who had executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of one Mr. P. Nagarajan and B. Murali, who had executed the

sale agreement, to and in favour of him. As such, he is the agreement holder of the said property, and he is running the tea stall for more than one

year, as a tenant. He further stated that he had purchased the property from the said Pankajammal and her brother Pakkirasamy under registered

sale deed. As such, he is the owner of the property. He further stated that till now, no one has claimed the property, since he is the owner of the

property and has purchased the same after paying sale consideration of a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/-.

The said ''A'' party had further stated about the history of the property, and has stated that Ms. R. Pankajammal, D/o. Late P. Perumal,

residing at Radhanallur Village, Keevalur Taluk, Nagapattinam District had executed a settlement deed in favour of P. Pakkirisamy, S/o. Late P.

Perumal, residing at door No. 434, 5th Cross, Petthal Nagar, Injambakkam to an extent of 18 cents in survey No. 16/7, Alandur Village,

Tambaram Taluk and in survey No. 16/8, an extent of 50 cents in the same village. The said Pankajammal had succeeded the property from her

father-in-law, viz., Deva Reddiar. The said Deva Reddiar had remitted tax to the Government. After his life time, his legal heir Ramasamy Reddiyar

had succeeded the property. After his life time, the said Pankajammal had succeeded the property as legal heir of Ramasamy Reddiar. In order to

establish the above statements, the ''A'' party has mentioned death certificates and legal heir certificate particulars. As such, the said Pankajammal

has become absolute owner of the property.

The learned counsel for the ''D'' party argued that there is a tense situation prevailing over the said property. All the rival claimant''s are having

money power and muscle power and disturbing the law and order by illegally trespassing into the property. Hence, the ''D'' party had lodged a

complaint before the Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount for police protection, in order to safeguard the life and property of ''D'' party and his

men. The said complaint is pending investigation. The Inspector of Police, after studying the tense situation over the said property, has filed a report

before the Revenue Divisional Officer for maintaining public peace. The learned counsel further submits that the ''D'' party has rights over the said

property and is possessing valid title deeds for claiming civil rights of the said property.

The ''C'' party has filed reply statements to the ''A'' party as well as ''B'' party. The ''B'' party had also filed reply statement to the ''C'' party.

The ''C'' party had also filed reply to the ''D'' party.

The Tambaram Taluk Tahsildar has submitted a report stating that the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar had inspected the property in survey No. 16/7,

Alandur Village and land survey No. 6, Ward ''H'' block 20, of Alandur Municipality, an extent of 1.014.0 sq metre, which is in the name of S.P.

Velayutham, S/o. Sabapathy, as per land survey register. At the time of physical inspection, the said Velayutham had constructed a wall and put

iron gates, on the said property. The Northern side of the said property, an extent of 0.878.0 Sq. metre land alone is the property in dispute. In

that property, the opposite party had raised a compound wall on the southern side, overnight, on 16.11.2009. The Deputy Tahsildar came to

know about the said fact after spot enquiry. The Deputy Tahsildar further found that the ''B'' party, viz., Mr. S.P. Velayutham had no access to

reach his property through G.S.T. Road. Mr. S.P. Velayutham had put up a guard room, on the southern side of the newly constructed wall,

wherein an electricity service connection had been disconnected. One more newly constructed guard room is adjacent to the G.S.T. Road, which

is in front of the newly erected compound wall, and in front of the newly erected compound wall, the hoarding of ""J.R. Scrap and Plastics"" had

been erected. After inspection, it is seen that a small bunk stall was also there.

The Deputy Tahsildar further observed that as per Municipality register, the said ''B'' party viz., Mr. S.P. Velaytham, had purchased the said

survey property. The patta, R.P.T. No, 13358 of 2008, had been verified, in which the old survey Nos. 16/5b, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18(b), 20, 17/16,

18/1, and 2(b) and new survey No. 6, an extent of 92090, sq. meters was originally in the name of V. Deva Reddy, Subbureddy. The same was

struck out and it had been overwritten as Deenadayalan Reddy, S/o. Sreeramu Reddy. The same had also been struck out and then the name had

been written as V. Amar, S/o. S.P. Velayutham. This name had also been struck out and the ''B'' party name i.e., Mr. S.P. Velayutham had been

entered. This property is situated within the Alandur Municipality. Therefore, new survey number had been assigned and Tambaram Taluk

Tahsildar and Alandur Municipality had issued patta. The Deputy Tahsildar further confirmed that the ''B'' party had erected two artisan wells in the

said property and obtained electricity connection. As such, the ''B'' party is in physical possession and enjoyment of property.

On considering the averments of all the parties and on perusing the documents of all the parties and also after studying the prevailing conditions

over the disputed total area, the Revenue Divisional Officer held that the ''B'' party i.e., Mr. S.P. Velayutham was in possession of the patta issued

by the Tahsildar. Therefore, it was held that the ''A'' party, ''C'' party and ''D'' party have to establish their rights before a Civil Court and sort out

the remedy, and that till such time, the ''B'' party''s physical possession and enjoyment should not be disturbed.

The said order was passed in M.C. No. Na. Ka. 4761 of 2009, on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer,

Tambaram, dated 1.4.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner, ''C'' party viz., Infovision (P) Ltd., Mr. V. Rajkumar represented

by its power of attorney agent, Mr. D. Gobichandran, has filed the above revision.

The learned senior counsel, Mr. B. Kumar appearing for the revision petitioner, viz., Infovision (P) Ltd., argued that, on 16.11.2009, the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalput, Kancheepuram District had issued notice to the ''A'' and ''B'' parties, to appear before him on 24.11.2009

at about 11 a.m., directing them to record their presence in person or through a pleader, regarding breach of peace due to the dispute with regard

to possession of land in survey No. 16/7, of Alandur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The said notice was issued u/s 145 of

Cr.P.C., but the learned Divisional Magistrate did not mention the ''C'' and ''D'' parties in the said notice. But copies of the notice were sent to the

''C'' and ''D'' parties which is not sustainable under law. The learned senior counsel referred to the above Section and language of the Section 145

of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace:

(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach

of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the

grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified

date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.

(2) For the purposes of this Section, the expression ""land or water"" includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the

rents of profits of any such property.

(3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the

Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute.

(4) The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits of the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse

the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks

necessary and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in

possession of the subject of dispute:

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date

on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order

under sub-section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section

(1).

(5) Nothing in this Section shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as

aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but,

subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1) shall be final.

(6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso, to sub-section (4) be treated as being, in such possession

of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and

forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction, and when he proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to

possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.

(b) The order made under this sub-section shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3).

(7) When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the declared party to be made a party to the

proceeding and shall thereupon continue the inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal representative of a deceased party for the

purpose of such proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the deceased party shall be made parties thereto.

(8) If the Magistrate is of the opinion that any crop or other produce of the property, the subject of dispute in a proceeding under this Section

pending before him, is subject to speedy and natural decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of such property, and, upon the

completion of the inquiry, shall make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale proceeds thereof, as he thinks fit.

(9) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the proceedings under this Section, on the application of either party, issue a summons to

any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing.

(10) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to be in derogation on the powers of the Magistrate to proceed u/s 107.

The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that on 24.11.2009, the Revenue Divisional Officer had passed an order

to the ''A'', ''B'', ''C'' and ''D'' parties not to encroach or trespass upon the property or raise any superstructure over the property till disposal of the

proceedings No. Na. Ka. N. 4761/2009-C, on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer further directed the

Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount to monitor the said property and directed him to take action for any breach of peace, as per law. In the

said order dated 24.11.2009, there was no mention regarding ''C'' party, but a copy of the order was sent to them. As such, the order dated

16.4.2009 is not maintainable without recording ''C'' party''s statements. As such, the Revenue Divisional Officer''s order is a pre-deter-mined and

an erroneous one.

(a) The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that there must be a preliminary order as required u/s 145(1). The impugned

order is not a final order and it is a preliminary order in terms of Section 145(1). If the preliminary order is wrong, there is no jurisdiction to pass

final order. Without passing final order as required u/s 145(1), the preliminary order is not sustainable. It was pointed out that whenever an

Executive Magistrate is satisfied from the report of a police officer or through other information that a dispute exists, assigning any land or

boundary within his jurisdiction, then he may invoke the provisions of Section 145(1). The present impugned order has been passed on the basis of

the police report, wherein it had been stated that two persons were fighting over the land and therefore, a dispute exists. However, the Revenue

Divisional Officer has to be satisfied that a dispute exists and must also give grounds and communicate it to the parties concerned asking

explanation. If it is construed as a preliminary order, it does not contain the grounds. Therefore, it cannot be taken as preliminary order and it

should be set aside for non application of mind.

(b) The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the only material available to the police was that the complaint was

lodged by the revision petitioner, C-party against Pankajammal and others (A-party). As such, the dispute was only between ''A'' and ''C'' parties.

He further states that the revision petitioner retains the ownership in respect of the remaining 4 cents out of the total of 18 cents in Survey No.

16/7. Throughout the proceedings, the parties were not informed at any point of time that anything other than the disputed area in Survey No. 16/7

was being dealt with by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The earlier complaint filed by the C-party against the A-party has been registered by the

police against A-party and his predecessors in Crime No, 72 of 2009, dated 5.2.2009. After registering F.I.R., there was no serious disturbance

to the possession of C-party. Subsequently, when the said Pankajammal again threatened the C-party, a complaint was lodged on 19.10.2009

against Pankajammal. As such, it is seen that the dispute is only between the ''A'' and ''C'' party and ''B'' party was no way in the picture. There

was no dispute between ''A'' and ''B'' party. Notice was also issued to all parties including ''C'' and ''D''. As such, the earlier order could not have

been issued to ''C'' and ''D'' party, as there was no preliminary order for ''C'' and ''D''. The preliminary order was passed only for the disputed area

of land in S. No. 16/7, Alandur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

(c) The learned senior counsel for revision petitioner further pointed out that no hearing was given and no written statements had been filed and the

''C'' party was not given an opportunity to lead evidence. Straight away, a final order has been passed, which is not only violative of the procedure

prescribed under the report but also violative of principles of natural justice. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that the preliminary

order defines the scope of enquiry u/s 145. When the preliminary order is passed with respect to dispute over only 18 cents of land covered in

Survey No. 16/7, Alandur Village and as such the final order could not have dealt with the greater extent of land i.e., 150 grounds. The Revenue

Divisional Officer has almost exclusively based her conclusion on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, dated 20.12.2009, which never revealed the

boundaries of land or titles to the various parties. Further, this report of the Deputy Tahsildar was not disclosed to the revision petitioner herein.

Therefore, the order has been based on un-communicated material, which is grave violation of the principles of natural justice. It was also pointed

out that the Deputy Tahsildar''s report was dated 20.12.2009 and the written statement filed by the revision petitioner was filed in February 2010,

whereas the preliminary order has been passed as early as 16.11.2009. Therefore, the said order is to be set-aside, as it is a non-speaking order.

It was pointed out that the S.P. Velayutham, the B-party has alleged that he had executed a sale deed in favour of his son and the same

consideration was for a sum of Rs. 5 crores, but the registering authority has not registered the property as the stamp duty alone comes to around

Rs. 15 crores. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that under the SARFAESI ACT, the property possession has already been given to

ARCIL and on this ground alone, the order has to be set-aside.

23(a). The impleading petitioner/proposed sixth respondent viz., Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, has contended in his affidavit

stating that they are a Securitisation Company and Reconstruction Company registered with the Reserve Bank of India under the provisions of the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI ACT). The impleading

petitioner is recognized as a ""financial institution"" within the meaning of Section 2(h)(ia) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial

Institutions Act 1993 (''RDDB Act'') as well as a ''secured creditor'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zd)(ii) of the SARFAESI Act. The

impleading petitioner is the largest asset reconstruction company in India engaged in the business of resolution of non-performing financial assets

after acquisition from banks and financial institutions.

23(b). The impleading petitioner further submitted that the Indian Bank, Chennai had extended certain financial facilities to a group of companies

including revision petitioner. As security for repayment of the said loan facilities, the borrowers and persons connected/interested thereto

mortgaged immovable properties admeasuring a total extent of approximately 120 grounds of mostly contiguous land situated in Alandur Village,

Tambaram in favour of the Indian Bank. The borrowers committed default in repayment of the loan amounts and the Indian Bank was forced to

initiate, inter alia, the following actions:

(i) Several Original Applications before the Hon''ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai in the year 1996 for recovery of money under the RDDB

Act including through sale of the mortgaged assets;

(ii) a notice dated 15.12.2004 was issued u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the borrowers/guarantors/mortgagors calling upon them to make

payment of the dues failing which further action including possession of the assets u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was contemplated.

(iii) upon non-payment of the debt despite the notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, possession of the secured (mortgaged) assets including the

Petition Schedule Property was taken by the Indian Bank u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on March 30, 2005. Due to the publication of the

possession notices in two newspapers as per the SARFAESI Act, there was widespread public knowledge of the possession of the mortgaged

properties including the Petition Schedule Property by the Indian Bank.

23(c). The impleading petitioner further submitted that Indian Bank assigned the secured financial assets of the borrowers including the Petition

Schedule Property to the impleading petitioner on December 7, 2007 in terms of Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, the petitioner

has stepped into the shoes of the Indian Bank and is entitled to all the benefits as a ''lender'' and all rights whatsoever of the Indian Bank in relation

to the said financial assets stood vested in the petitioner.

23(d). The impleading petitioner further submitted that subsequent to the aforesaid assignment, all of the secured (mortgaged) assets continue to

remain in the impleading petitioner''s physical possession in terms of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The impleading petitioner''s ''name-

boards'', inter alia, confirming its possession of the secured (mortgaged) assets have been affixed conspicuously leaving no one in doubt about the

petitioner''s rights over the secured (mortgaged) properties. The impleading petitioner has also appointed ITCOT Consultancy Serviced Ltd.,

(''ITCOT'') as its custodian in terms of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. The impleading petitioner, through ITCOT, has also

deployed security personnel at the site of the mortgaged property. Subsequent to the assignment in its favour, the impleading petitioner has also

been substituted in the place of the Indian Bank in all legal proceedings including the Original Applications filed in the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is

thus clear the impleading petitioner''s right over the secured (mortgaged) properties including the Petition Schedule Property are well recognized in

law.

23(e). The impleading petitioner further submitted that while the matters stood thus, anti social elements/land grabbers have been eying the

mortgaged properties and attempting to encroach upon the lands in the impleading petitioner''s possession due to the spiraling land-prices. The

impleading petitioner has approached various competent authorities for relief including the police in this regard. In fact in one of the incidents the

3rd, 4th and 5th respondent herein attempted to encroach upon the property in possession of the impleading petitioner which has allegedly resulted

in the presence to the Executive Magistrate u/s 145 of the Cr.P.C., by the Inspector of Police. S-1 Police Station, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai-

600 016.

23(f). The impleading petitioner further submitted that after coming to know about the proceedings before the learned Executive Magistrate, the

petitioner''s authorized representatives appeared before the learned Executive Magistrate on 24.11.2009 and informed that the property is in

possession of the impleading petitioner in terms of the provisions of the SARFAESI ACT. The learned Executive Magistrate directed the

impleading petitioner''s representatives to file written submissions and documents regarding the rights of the impleading petitioner. Accordingly, on

27.11.2009, the impleading petitioner had brought the aforesaid facts including of its possession of the Petition Schedule Property under the

SARFAESI ACT to the notice of the learned Executive Magistrate and requested for an opportunity to present its case prior to any order that

may be passed therein. However, despite the impleading petitioner''s written submissions dated 26.11.2009 as well as the fact of the impleading

petitioner''s possession of the Petition Schedule Property under the SARFAESI Act (as recorded in the impugned order itself), the learned

Executive Magistrate not only did not afford an opportunity to the impleading petitioner to present its case but also disregarded various other

evidence establishing the possession of the impleading petitioner over the Petition Schedule Property and passed the impugned order. He further

submitted that aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1.4.2010 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, the impleading petitioner herein filed

Crl. O.P. No. 27317 of 2010 and the same is pending on the file of this Court.

23(g). The impleading petitioner further submitted that the subject matter and the issues in Crl. O.P. No. 27317 of 2010 and the present revision

are the same and therefore any order passed in the Criminal Revision will have a direct implication on the rights of the impleading petitioner herein.

He further submitted that in the above circumstances the impleading petitioner is a necessary party and therefore needs to be heard before any

orders are passed in the Criminal Revision. He further submitted that if the impleading petitioner is not impleaded and given an opportunity to

present his case, the impleading petitioner would be subject to severe loss and hardship. He further submitted that the impleading petitioner has

made out a prima facie case for being impleaded in the matter. He further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the

impleading petitioner is impleaded as a respondent and allowed to present his case.

The revision petitioner has narrated the facts of the case and has submitted that;

(a) the revision petitioner along with one Satyam Foods Ltd., Mr. V. Rajkumar and S.N.J. Properties Management Private Ltd., are the absolute

owners of an extent of 18 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 16/7 of Alandur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The above

extents also forms part of larger extents of land in all admeasuring 150 grounds or thereabouts purchased in the names of various

individual/companies of the M.V.R. Group during the period 1988 to 1990. An extent of 120 grounds out of the said extents including an extent of

14 cents (out of 18 cents) comprised in Survey No. 16/7 were mortgaged by the respective owners to the Indian Bank ever since the date of

purchase so as to enable the M.V.R. Group to avail the financial facilities.

(b) in 1996 Indian Bank filed recovery suits before the D.R.T. Chennai, against the borrower companies and thereafter, in January 2005, the bank

initiated SARFAESI Proceedings and took possession of the secured assets on 30.3.2005, The Indian Bank had also published the Demand

Notice as well as the Possession Notice in the leading newspapers in 2005 itself wherein the description of the secured assets, the names of the

borrowers and mortgagors were all given in detail. The General Public were also cautioned not to deal with the said properties. On 7.12.2007,

Indian Bank assigned the 120 grounds in Alandur Village including the mortgaged extent of 14 cents comprised in S. No. 16/7 to the Asset

Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd., (ARCIL), Mumbai under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Thus an extent of 14 cents out of the 18 cents

of land comprised in S. No. 16/7 still continues to be under the mortgage and possession of ARCIL and the balance 4 cents are held by the

respective owners.

(c) the fourth respondent set up a false claim on title over the disputed extents comprised in Survey No. 16/7 as well as an extent of approximately

100 grounds out of the total extent of 150 grounds owned by M.V.R. Group in Alandur Village comprised in Survey Nos. 16 to 19 and 21 by

virtue of a fraudulent Settlement Deed purportedly executed by his own son V. Amar in his favour in the year 2008, who in turn had purportedly

purchased the same from one K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son D. Venkatakrishnan in the year 2007. However, the said K.S.

Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son D. Venkatakrishnan have no right, title or interest over the said properties in any manner whatsoever and the

Power of Attorney, Settlement Deed and the Sale Deed executed by the parties are wholly fabricated documents to set up a false claim over the

properties. The fourth respondent also forged and fabricated certain agreements with the help of the fifth respondent to establish a false claim of

possession over the properties.

(d) the so called predecessor in title of the fourth respondent, viz., K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar was one of the six sons of K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar

who had sold off their remaining properties admeasuring an extent of 1.87 acres of land in Alandur Village to the predecessors in the title of the

M.V.R. Group way back in the year 1985-1986 itself. After a period of almost 21 years, one of the sons of K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar, viz., K.S.

Deenadayalu Reddiyar alone, falsely claiming to be the only son of K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar and the owner of an extent of 6.3.11 1/2 Cawnies

(approximately 8.29 acres) of lands in Alandur Village, executed a fraudulent power of attorney in favour of the third respondent in 2006. The said

power of attorney does not contemplate any power to sell the property. It is pertinent that under the power of attorney the properties mentioned in

the schedule were referred to only by their PIMASH numbers.

(e) the fourth respondent, using the said fraudulent power of attorney, executed a fraudulent sale deed in favour of his own son V. Amar on

5.7.2007 and registered as document No. 2179 of 2007 before the Sub-Registrar, Alandur purportedly conveying an extent of 9.92 ares of lands

in Alandur Village for a paltry, sham and nominal sale consideration of Rs. 5 crores. Under the said sale deed, the fourth respondent intentionally

and knowingly made a wrong co-relation of the PIMASH numbers of the properties with survey numbers of the lands held by M.V.R. Group

including the revision petitioner with a view to encumber the said properties.

(f) The Paimash numbers of the properties mentioned in the power of attorney does not co-relate with the survey numbers mentioned in the sale

deed executed in favour of V. Amar. The family of K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar was holding only 1.87 acres of lands in Alandur Village at the time

of entering into the partition in 1977, the breakup of which is given below:

(g) by virtue of the partition, K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar received only 31 cents in Survey Nos. 18/2, 19/2, 18/5A and 16/20 as his share of the

property. Thereafter, in 1985, the predecessors in title of the M.V.R. Group purchased the entire extent of 1.87 acres from the respective owners

including K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son K. Venkatakrishnan who had both executed the sale deeds. A verification of the co-relation of

the PIMASH numbers with survey numbers made by the fourth respondent would reveal the fact that the fourth respondent had intentionally made

an erroneous co-relation for the purpose of including the survey numbers of the properties owned by the petitioner as well as M.V.R., Group in the

schedule to the said sale deed. Therefore, the very sale deed in favour of Mr. V. Amar and the subsequent settlement deed in favour of the fourth

respondent are void, non-est in law and does not confer any right, title or interest upon them.

(h) the said V. Amar, executed a settlement deed in favour of the fourth respondent on 19.10.2008 and registered as document No. 2881 of 2008

before the Sub-Registrar, Alandur. It is on the basis of these fabricated, forged and fraudulent documents that the fourth respondent is seeking to

claim title and possession over the disputed extents as well as the other extents of property owned by the M.V.R. Group in Alandur Village.

Further, using the said forged, fabricated and concocted documents, the fourth respondent also managed to fraudulently obtain Town Survey

Pattas in his name even while the petitioner as well as the other owners are holding Revenue Pattas for the entire extents and Town Survey Pattas

for a substantial extent of lands owned by them. The fourth respondent also manipulated the Revenue Records pertaining to the property in

collusion with the concerned officials so as to include his name in the said records in a fraudulent manner. In any event, since the fourth respondent

cannot and has not obtained any title over the properties by virtue of the settlement deed/sale deed executed between himself and his son V. Amar,

all the other documents like Town Survey Patta and other Revenue Records relied on by him will not confer any title upon him in respect of the

disputed properties. It is therefore evident that the said persons have knowingly manipulated the Pimash Numbers and the Survey Numbers of the

properties while executing the sale deed with the sole intention of grabbing a very valuable property owned by the M.V.R. Group including the

disputed extents in Survey No. 16/7.

(i) similarly the third respondent claims possession over the disputed extent comprised in Survey No. 16/7, Alandur Village admeasuring 18 cents

on the strength of an agreement of sale dated 2.3.2009 entered into with one R. Pankajammal who has been claiming title over the said extent of

18 cents from the year 2006 onwards by way of ""Enjoyment Rights"" as the alleged daughter-in-law of one Deva Reddiyar, son of Venkatarama

Reddiyar. The said R. Pankajammal surfaced only in the year 2008 and started executing power of attorneys, agreements of sale, settlement

deeds, revocation of settlement, lease agreements and such other documents in favour of different persons with a view to encumber the said

properties. It is on the basis of one such fabricated agreement of sale dated 2.3.2009 that the third respondent is claiming possession over the

disputed extent of 18 cents in survey No. 16/7.

(j) the said R. Pankajammal claims to be in enjoyment of the said extent of 18 cents on the strength of a fabricated ""Enjoyment Certificate

purportedly issued by an office titled as ""Udhavi Aanaiyar Aluvalgam"" at Tiruvannamalai on 20.6.1969. A mere perusal of the said document

would show that the same is nothing but a fabricated and forged document and that during the year 1969 or subsequently, no such office called

Udhavi Aanaiyar Aluvalagam"" was functioning in Tiruvannamalai. On the contrary, the petitioner along with other co-owners had purchased the

said extent of 18 cents comprised in Survey No. 16/7 during the year 1988-1990 from the four sons of V. Devarajulu Reddiyar @ Deva Reddiyar

and has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said extents, ever since the date of purchase.

(k) the third respondent, R. Pankajammal and other persons claiming through her as well as the fourth respondent repeatedly attempted to grab

possession of the property from the year 2007 onwards. Numerous complaints were lodged both by the petitioner herein as well as the other co-

owners and ARCIL with the first respondent herein as well as the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Suburban Police against these land grabbers.

In the first week of February 2009, an attempt was made by Ms. R. Pankajammal and her group to grab possession of the disputed extent in

Survey No. 16/7 and the same was effectively thwarted due to the timely intervention of the Police. An F.I.R. No. 72 of 2009, dated 5.2.2009

was also registered by the first respondent against some of the accused persons. Similarly, an attempt made by the fourth respondent to hold a

political rally in the property was prevented by an order passed by Hon''ble DRT-II, Chennai, on 25.2.2009 wherein it has been categorically

stated that the properties in question were mortgaged to Indian Bank/ARCIL and the police was also directed to take action on the complaints

lodged by the owners/ARCIL against the land grabbers.

(l) thereafter, another F.I.R. No. 41 of 2009 dated 18.4.2009 was registered against the fourth respondent as well as other persons and is pending

investigation on the file of the Central Crime Branch, Chennai Suburban Police. The accused persons obtained anticipatory bail from this Court in

May-June 2009. Thereafter, the fourth respondent and his son V. Amar recently filed Crl. O.P. No. 10825 of 2010 before this Court seeking to

quash the said F.I.R. and obtained an ex-parte interim stay on 13.5.2010. The petitioner and other de-facto complainants have filed a petition

seeking to implead themselves in the said proceedings and the same is pending. In spite of registration of the F.I.R''s, the respondents 3 to 5

relentlessly pursued their attempts to grab illegal possession of the disputed extents and the same created frequent law and order problems in the

property.

(m) that on 16.10.2009 and 17.11.2009, the third respondent and his group accompanied by some rowdy elements once again broke open the

gate of the property and attempted to grab possession. The petitioner had lodged two complaints dated 19.10.2009 and 7.11.2009 with the

police. A Crime No. 1178 of 2009 u/s 145 Cr.P.C., dated 24.10.2009 was registered by the first respondent and the same was referred to the

learned R.D.O. and S.D.M., Tambaram for adjudication. The second respondent issued a notice dated 16.11.2009 calling upon the parties to

appear before her on 24.11.2009. On the said date, the petitioner filed a letter with the second respondent stating that ARCIL is in possession of

the property along with the co-owners and therefore any adjudication without hearing ARCIL would vitiate the proceedings. Simultaneously,

ARCIL''s counsel was also present, made a plea to be impleaded as a necessary party in the Section 145 Proceedings. The fourth respondent was

represented by his counsel and nobody appeared for the second and fifth respondents.

(n) the petitioner pleaded before the second respondent that the trespassers are putting up the construction of a wall and shed in the disputed

extents and the second respondent passed an order in Na. Ka. 4761-C of 2009 directing the claimants to maintain status quo during pendency of

the proceedings with a further direction to the first respondent to continuously monitor the situation and take appropriate action as contemplated

under law against any person who violates the said order. The second respondent also directed the parties to file their respective statement of

claims with the supporting documents and the next date of hearing was to be notified. In spite of the said order of status quo the third respondent

completed the construction of a wall on the Eastern side barring access to the larger extents of the property and a small shed on the Western

portion of the disputed property facing the G.S.T. Road by breaking open a portion of the existing compound wall, admeasuring approximately

100 sq. ft. and had set up a shop in the same. The petitioner brought the same to the notice of the first respondent Police and immediately the first

respondent police directed the fourth respondent to close the shop.

(o) in the first week of February 2010, the third respondent reopened the shop and commenced business. Even though the same was immediately

brought to the notice of the first respondent police that they failed to take any action. In the meanwhile, on 7.2.2010, first respondent informed the

petitioner that the hearing in the adjudication proceedings was scheduled to be held before the second respondent on 8.2.2010 at 11 a.m. The

petitioner along with his advocate went to the office of the third respondent and was informed that the hearing was postponed to 3 p.m. at

Tambaram. The petitioner''s Director D. Gobichandran appeared in person at 3 p.m. and filed a detailed statement of claim along with all

supporting documents before the second respondent. Copies of the same were also furnished to the other claimants by the petitioner. No

advocates appeared for the third and fifth respondents and were sought to be represented by some persons claiming to be their representatives.

The second respondent directed either the party or the counsel alone should appear in the matter. No statement of claim or documents were filed

on behalf of the third and fifth respondents on the said date.

(p) the second respondent did not hold any formal hearing on the said date and adjourned the matter stating that the next date of hearing would be

intimated to all of them. At that juncture, the petitioner filed a Memo before the second respondent stating that the third respondent and his group

were violating the status-quo order passed on 24.11.2009 and was running a shop in the premises for the past one week. The second respondent

immediately directed the first respondent to take appropriate action and to ensure compliance of the status-quo order. In spite of the same, no

action was taken by the police. Thereafter, the third respondent, through Ms. R. Pankajammal attempted to obtain an electricity service connection

to the shed in the disputed extent. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 5738 of 2010 and obtained an interim injunction restraining the TNEB from

granting any service connection to the premises and the same is pending.

(q) thereafter no hearing was held by the second respondent in the matter. The petitioner was awaiting notice of further hearing and the copies of

claims filed by the third and fifth respondents were never served on the petitioner. Further, the reply filed by the fourth respondent to the claim of

the petitioner was also not served on the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner was never called for any hearing after 8.2.2010 by the second

respondent and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain their case or the documents filed by them. When the matter was adjourned

on 8.2.2010, the pleadings were yet to be completed by the parties. The petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity to refute or rebut the

claims made by the other parties and no personal hearing in the matter was held after 8.2.2010. It is pertinent while adjourning the matter on

8.2.2010, the second respondent had categorically stated that the date of the subsequent hearing would be intimated to the parties and thereafter

no notice of hearing was given to the petitioner.

(r) while this was so, the petitioner was shocked and surprised to receive the impugned order dated 1.4.2010 by post on 23.4.2010 and the

revision petitioner is unable to understand as to how the second respondent has passed the said order without affording a proper opportunity of

being heard to the petitioner in the above matter. It is also pertinent that the under the said order, respondents 3 to 5 are shown to be represented

through their counsel, whereas the petitioner herein is not shown to be represented by any person. As stated earlier, the petitioner had appeared on

24.11.2009 as well as on 8.2.2010 and the same is clearly evidenced by the Letter/Memo/Statement of Claim filed by the petitioner on the said

dates. However, the third and fifth respondents were not represented through their counsel nor did they appear in person on the said dates and

therefore the petitioner is not aware as to when and how the third and fifth respondent''s counsel had appeared before the second respondent and

pleaded their case. Further the reply purportedly made by the fourth respondent to the statement of claim made by the petitioner was also not

served on the petitioner at any point of time, nor is the petitioner aware as to when the hearing in respect of the same was held by the second

respondent. In short, after 8.2.2010, the petitioner was not informed, nor called for any hearing by the second respondent and therefore the

impugned order stands vitiated by reason of the fact that proper opportunity has not been afforded to the petitioner to either substantiate their case

or to rebut the claims of the other claimants.

(s) the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent without proper application of mind and without adverting to the statement of

claim or documents filed by the petitioner. Further the second respondent has also traversed far beyond the scope of reference while adjudicating

the issue before her. It is pertinent that the dispute which was referred for adjudication before the second respondent pertain only to an extent of

18 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 16/7 in Alandur Village. However, the second respondent, has made sweeping statements and has given

unwarranted findings to the effect that the fourth respondent is the owner of almost 150 grounds of lands which is actually owned by the revision

petitioner and the M.V.R. Group and that the fourth respondent is in possession thereof.

(t) the second respondent has exceeded her jurisdiction by traversing beyond the scope of reference by giving findings in respect of the properties

which do not pertain to the dispute under reference and making wild allegations against the petitioner without adverting to the facts and

documentary evidences on record. The second respondent has accepted all the contentions made by the fourth respondent without even

ascertaining the veracity of the same. The second respondent has also proceeded to give finding of facts which are wholly contrary and

contradictory to the documents available on record with a view to uphold the false claim of the fourth respondent. The second respondent has also

failed to apply her mind even to the basic documents through which the fourth respondent is seeking to establish title and possession over the

properties, which, if perused, would clearly reveal that the same are fabricated and concocted documents.

(u) the second respondent has also referred to a Survey Report of the property said to have been conducted by the Tahsildar, Tambaram on

20.12.2009 to arrive at certain erroneous conclusions. However, the petitioner was never informed nor put on notice about the proposed survey

said to have been conducted by the Tahsildar, nor was the same placed before the petitioner as well as other claimants by the second respondent

in the course of the hearing on 8.2.2010. It is also pertinent that the petitioner and the fourth respondent had filed their statements of claim before

the second respondent only on 8.2.2010. The third and fifth respondents did not file their claim petitions even on the said date. In the first hearing

held on 24.11.2009, the parties were merely directed to file their statements of claim. Therefore, the findings given by the second respondent

based on the so called report said to have been furnished by the Tahsildar on 20.12.2009 without putting the petitioner on notice, is highly suspect.

(v) the so called report of the Tahsildar is also patently erroneous and the findings therein are absolutely baseless. If the Tahsildar had actually

inspected the property, he would have found that the security personnel deputed by ARCIL as well the petitioner are always available in the

premises and that the property is under possession of ARCIL as well as the petitioner. The Tahsildar who is expected only to make a survey of the

physical condition of the property in his so called report has proceeded to give a certificate of title to the fourth respondent for an extent of 150

grounds in Alandur Village, based on which the second respondent blindly proceeded to give a finding that the fourth respondent is the absolute

owner of more than 150 grounds of the properties including the disputed extent of 18 cents and that he is in possession and enjoyment of the same.

The revision petitioner was never put on notice about the so called survey said to have been conducted on 20.12.2009 nor were they given any

opportunity to assail the contents of the said report at any point of time. In fact the petitioner became aware of such a survey report only after

perusing the impugned order.

(w) the non application of mind on the part of the second respondent is evident from the fact that as per the report of the Tahsildar, the entries in

the patta register shows that the patta for survey No. 16/7 was originally standing in the name of one V. Deva Reddiyar which was mutated in the

name of K.S. Deenadayalu Reddiyar and subsequently in the name of V. Amar. If the fourth respondent is claiming title through K.S. Deenadayalu

Reddiyar who in turn got his title from his father K.P. Sriramulu Reddiyar, the name of V. Deva Reddiyar will not be reflected as a patta holder for

the property comprised in Survey No. 16/7. On the contrary, the petitioner herein had purchased the said extent from four sons of V. Deva

Reddiyar as stated earlier and this in itself is a clear proof of the fact that the fourth respondent, with the help of various government officials have

falsely mutated the revenue records pertaining to the property, so as to include the name of his son and himself as the owners of the said

properties.

(x) the second respondent, without adverting to any of the said facts or any of the documentary evidences filed by the petitioner and without

affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, has proceeded to pass an arbitrary order holding the fourth respondent to be the owner of

almost 150 grounds of lands in Alandur Village, even though the dispute which was referred for adjudication pertains only to an extent of 18 cents

comprised in Survey No. 16/7 and the same is entirely vitiated. Similarly, the findings given by the second respondent under the said order are also

wholly erroneous, perverse and contrary to the facts and documentary evidences on record and made without proper application of mind.

On considering the foregoing discussions, and on perusing the typed set of papers, this Court opines that

(i) The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram had not decided the title and ownership of the property. The

learned Revenue Divisional Officer invoked Section 145 of Cr.P.C., to maintain peace over the property situated in Survey No. 16/7 of Alandur

Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District on the request of the Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount and passed orders to maintain law

and order and peace in the said location. The area comes under his jurisdiction. He is the competent authority, to decide the issue on the basis of

the request made by the Inspector of Police, who is also equally responsible to ensure law and order in the area, under his command.

(ii) The Civil Suit in O.S. No. 704 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif Court, Alandur was dismissed as vexatious, on 1.4.2010. As on date, no

interim order has been passed favouring any party. Under the circumstances, the parties concerned have created a tense situation over the said

property, for claiming physical possession, on the strength of the titles being possessed by them. Therefore, both the Revenue Divisional Officer.

Tambaram and the Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount are equally responsible to maintain law and order and ensure that peace prevails in the

area.

(iii) ''A'' party had lodged a complaint against ''B'' party on 16.10.2009 stating that the ''B'' party and his men threatened the ''A'' party and his

men, while ''A'' party and his men were in the process of raising a compound wall over the property. The said complaint in C.S.R. No. 512 of

2009 is pending on the file of Inspector of Police.

(iv) On the very same day, the ''B'' party had filed a counter complaint against ''A'' party and his men stating that ''A'' party and his men, prevented

the'' B'' party and his men from entering into the property and threatened and drove them away. This complaint had been lodged before the

Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount (Law and Order) registered as C.S.R. No. 513 of 2009, on the file of Inspector of Police, St. Thomas

Mount.

(v) The ''C'' party men, one Rajakumar and his power agent viz., Gobichandran against Pankajammal, Ramani, Kesavamurthy and a few others

had attacked one Chakrapani with deadly weapons and damaged the gate. This happened during the night hours. Hence, the said Chakrapani,

who is the watchman of the property had levelled a criminal case before the Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount. The Inspector of Police has

registered the case in Crime No. 72 of 2009 for the offence u/s 147, 148, 341, 324, 427, 506(2) of I.P.C. The case is pending investigation.

(vi) The ''D'' party viz., M. Farooq had filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount stating that the property situated in

Survey No. 16 to 21, an extent of 150 grounds, door No. 24, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai-32, is being occupied and enjoyed by him for the

past 20 years. Hence, he has requested the Inspector of Police to give police protection in order to protect the life and property of himself and his

men.

(vii) Even after lodging of complaints by all the parties, the parties are taking law in their hand and disturbing public peace over the property.

Therefore, the necessary action has been taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the basis of the 4 criminal complaints, which are pending on

the file of the Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount, and he had also collected report from his subordinates i.e., the Deputy Tahsildar,

Tambaram, who had conducted the physical verification. On the basis of the reports submitted by two responsible officers of the State, the

Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order to maintain peace.

(viii) The Revenue Divisional Officer, in his impugned order mentioned that ''A'' party, ''C'' party and ''D'' party have to sort out their remedy,

regarding their civil rights over the property, through a civil Court and till such time, the ''B'' party should not be disturbed. This order will not be

prejudicial to the interests and rights of the '' A'', ''C'' and ''D'' parties. This order has been made purely to maintain peace and ensure that law and

order prevails over the said property, which is under the command of the Revenue Divisional Officer.

(ix) The impleading petitioner viz., Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., had financed the Indian Bank, Chennai, who is the mortgagee of

the property, to an extent of 120 grounds including the disputed property. The impleading petitioner''s civil rights and physical possession of the

property can be established only before a civil Court. This impugned order has been made only to maintain law and order and had been passed

according to criminal procedure code. As such the rights of the impleading petitioner will not be in any away affected by the impugned order.

(x) If the impugned order is an erroneous one or not sustainable under law, then the revision petitioner can file an administrative appeal against the

impugned order before the District Revenue Officer. Subsequently, if the revision petitioner is not satisfied with the order of the Revenue Divisional

Officer, provisions have been laid down for filing a second administrative appeal before the second Commissioner, Land Dispute and Reforms.

(xi) If the impugned order is not sustainable under law and is not maintainable as per the facts of the case, the impleading petitioner can challenge

the order by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution for his legal remedy but no provision can be made out to

entertain the impleading petition before this Court. This decision made on the impleading petition is purely based on this Court''s discretionary

power in the instant case. This Court views that the impleading petition in the present case cannot be entertained. This revision has been made by

the revision petitioner only to point out any irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and is only relating to the

parties, who had earlier participated in the proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The impleading petitioner had not participated in the

proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, he has no locus standi to file the impleading petition to establish his civil rights before

this Court.

On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel, Mr. B. Kumar, for the revision

petitioner and arguments advanced by the learned senior counsels, Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy and Mr. A. Ramesh for Mr. Vedavalli Kumar and Mr.

S. Vasudevan, learned counsels for the fourth respondent and arguments advanced by Mr. Muthappan, learned counsel for the fifth respondent

and on scrutinizing the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein, viz., Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Tambaram, in his proceedings in M.C. No. Na. Ka. 4761 of 2009, dated 1.4.2010, and this Court''s findings listed as (i) to (xi), this

Court dismisses the revision along with impleading petition and confirms the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein.

Thirumaniselvam was shown as the ''A'' party in the R.D.O. Proceedings. He has not filed any revision before this Court. However, one Mr.

Ravikumar claiming through Thirumaniselvam filed Crl. R.C. No. 613 of 2010 before this Court. He withdrew the revision as not pressed, which

was also ordered accordingly. Resultantly, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order passed in M.C. Na. Ka. 4761 of

2009, on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, dated 1.4.2010 is confirmed and the impleading

petition in M.P. No. 1 of 2012 is dismissed. Accordingly ordered.