AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.K. Sasidharan, J.—This is an era of land grabbing not only by private individuals but also by educational institutions and public charitable
trust. It is also a matter of concern that unmindful of the law declared by the higher Courts that even when ex parte decree is passed, the merits of
the matter should be considered, certain Civil Judges have been giving ex parte declaration of title without application of mind. The subject writ
petition is a classic example as to how the City Civil Court, Chennai, declared the title of the petitioner with respect to 10 acres of prime land in the
City without applying its mind and solely on the ground that the Government officials remained ex parte.
The facts:
The petitioner is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The petitioner is running several educational institutions
throughout India. The land in Survey Nos. 9/1 and 9/2 having an extent of 180 acres were owned and possessed by the then Bishop of Madras-
Mylapore on the strength of registered document Nos. 2118/1885 & 2085/1886 on the file of Registrar, Madras. The then Bishop of Madras-
Mylapore had sold a major portion of the land in favour of Gandhi Nagar Co-operative House Construction Society vide document No.
2571/1947 on the file of Sub Registrar, Saidapet. The Society formed a lay out and sold the land to the members which includes a club by name
Gandhi Nagar Club. The land which is the subject matter of this writ petition has been in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. The
petitioner has been running several educational institutions in the name and style of St. Patrick Higher Secondary School, St. Michael''s Academy,
St. Patrician College of Arts and Science etc. in the sprawling area of more than 35 acres. The land having an extent of 10 acres and 2 cents has
been used as a playground of the institution.
The petitioner found that a portion of the land in T.S. No. 2, Block No. 24, measuring an extent of 10 acres and 2 cents was inadvertently
classified as ""Vilayattu Maidanam"" by the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation before the
Tahsildar on 10th March 2003 to reclassify the land as playground. Since the fourth respondent failed to consider the said representation, the
petitioner was constrained to file an appeal before the District Collector, Chennai. During the currency of appeal, there was an attempt to interfere
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.
No. 45747 of 2004. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders on the appeal. The
authorities were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner till the disposal of the
matter.
In the meantime, third parties filed a suit against the petitioner in O.S. Nos. 2526 of 2004 and 2439 of 2006 before the II Assistant City Civil
Court, Chennai. The suits were one for declaration and injunction. The suits were dismissed by the Civil Court. The decree was confirmed in
appeal.
The petitioner filed a comprehensive suit in O.S. No. 4413 of 2005 before VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai praying for a decree of
declaration of title and permanent injunction. The Collector, Chennai and Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk were impleaded as defendants in
the said suit. The suit was decreed as prayed for by judgment and decree dated 23rd August 2005. According to the petitioner, the District
Revenue Officer, Land and Estate Department, Corporation of Chennai, visited the School premises on 22nd February, 2010 and directed the
School authorities to hand over vacant possession of the playground forthwith. This resulted in filing a writ petition by the petitioner in W.P. No.
4259 of 2010. The learned Judge was pleased to pass an order restraining the Corporation from taking any coercive action.
Thereafter, the second respondent conducted enquiry on 11th September, 2012. The second respondent passed an order on 28th December,
2012 dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner for rectification of revenue records. The said order was challenged before the first
respondent. The first respondent confirmed the order passed by the District Revenue Officer and dismissed the appeal. The legality and
correctness of the said order is challenged in this writ petition.
Submissions:
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for the last
many years. The Civil Court has already declared the title in favour of the petitioner. This Court has also observed earlier that the petitioner is in
possession and enjoyment of the property. The first respondent failed to consider the claim made by the petitioner on the basis of title and
possession and erroneously dismissed the appeal. The learned Senior Counsel contended that in view of the decree in O.S. No. 4413 of 2005 it
was not open to the Revenue Authorities to give a finding with regard to title and possession. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in
case this Court is of the view that the remedy is only to approach the Civil Court, reasonable time should be given to file a Civil Suit and status quo
should be directed to be preserved during the interregnum.
The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Corporation of Chennai submitted that the land in question belongs to the
Corporation on the basis of a deed of assignment. The property has been in the possession and enjoyment of the Corporation. The petitioner has
no title to the property and the possession is also with the Corporation. According to the learned Advocate General, the Corporation of Chennai
was not a party to the suit in O.S. No. 4413 of 2005. Therefore, the decree passed in the said suit would not bind the Corporation. The learned
Advocate General contended that the Commissioner of Land Administration has given a detailed order on merits with reference to the revenue
records. The property was earlier classified as ""Vilayattu Maidanam"". It was always in the possession and enjoyment of the Corporation. The
petitioner is a rank trespasser. The people of that area used the land in question as a playground. The students of the petitioner institution also used
it as a play ground. Such a permissible use would not give any right to the petitioner to claim patta in respect of the property.
Factual Analysis:
The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai primarily on the
ground that the Civil Court has already declared its title in O.S. No. 4413 of 2005. The petitioner also contended that this Court on an earlier
occasion while directing the revenue authorities to consider and dispose of the application for patta observed that the property is in its possession
and enjoyment.
Since the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the Civil Court Decree in O.S. No. 4413 of 2005, I have summoned the original records. The
records produced by the City Civil Court indicates that the learned Civil Judge mechanically passed a judgment and decree holding that the subject
property belongs to the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge marked the documents produced by the petitioner and after examining an employee of
the petitioner passed the following judgment:
Plaintiff present. Examined as P.W. 1. Proof affidavit of P.W. 1 filed. Ex. A. 1 to A. 14 marked. Perused, Claim Proved. Suit is decreed as
prayed for with costs.
Since the suit was one for declaration and injunction, the learned Civil Judge should have considered the documents produced by the petitioner
and a decree on merits should have been given. The fact that the District Collector and Tahsildar failed to appear before the Court would not give
it a jurisdiction to grant a decree as prayed for without considering the merits of the matter.
In Meenakshisundaram Textiles Vs. Valliammal Textiles Ltd., a Division Bench of this Court observed that a judgment should contain all the
issues and findings or decisions thereon with the reasons therefor and the same applies even to an ex parte decree. The Division Bench observed:
In terms of the above provisions, every judgment should contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, decision thereon
and the reasons for such decision. A judgment which does not contain the bare minimum facts, the point for determination, the evidence adduced
and the application of those facts and evidence for deciding the issue would not qualify it to be called as ""judgment"". The judgment should contain
the brief summary of the facts, the evidence produced by the plaintiff in support of his claim and the reasoning of the learned Judge either for
decreeing the suit or its dismissal. The CPC does not say that the Court is bound to grant a decree in case the defendant is absent. Judgment
means cognitive process of reading a decision or drawing conclusion. Judgment is the basic requirement for a court and it means a decision or
conclusion reached after consideration and deliberation. To put it differently, the basics of a judgment are to support by most cogent reasons that
suggest themselves the final conclusion at which the Judge has conscientiously arrived.
CPC does not define either an ex parte judgment or an ex parte decree. It refers only to a judgment and a decree. In the event a judgment is
rendered when the defendant fails to defend the suit by his absence, that judgment is known to be an ex parte judgment and the decree drawn on
the basis of that judgment is known as an ex parte decree. Hence, even for an ex parte judgment and the decree, the basic ingredients of judgment
must be available to the extent to indicate that the Court has applied its mind to the pleading, relief claimed thereunder, the evidence and the
conclusion arrived at by the Court on the above.
The Corporation of Chennai was not a party to the suit in O.S. No. 4413 of 2005. The petitioner knowing very well that the property belongs
to the Corporation, failed to implead the local body as a party to the writ petition. The Chennai Corporation purchased the subject property by
way of a sale deed No. 435 of 1956 dated 3rd March, 1956. The petitioner wanted to create documents and for the said purpose by showing an
artificial threat a Civil suit was filed before the City Civil Court impleading the District Collector and Tahsildar as parties. Since the Civil Court has
not given any finding on merits with respect to the title or possession, the ex parte decree would not be of any help to the petitioner in its contention
that the property belongs to the society.
The revenue records clearly shows that the land was classified as ""Sarkar Poramboke"". It was described as ""Chennai Corporation Vilayattu
Maidanam"".
According to the petitioner, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property from 20th September 1886. The revenue records
shows that the land mentioned in the document dated 20 September 1886 was registered in the name of Dr. Joseph Colgen Bishop of Oorur
Village. However, there was no such entries showing the name of the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner in revenue records with respect to the
subject property. The mere fact that all other properties owned by the petitioner were all recorded in the revenue records and that the disputed
property was not the subject of any such registration or endorsement in revenue records, itself would prove the falsity of the case pleaded by the
petitioner. Therefore I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner.
The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration considered the factual matrix in the light of Revenue Records and arrived at
a clear finding against the petitioner. The petitioner now wanted this Court to sit on appeal over the said decision. Judicial review by a constitutional
court in a matter of this nature is very limited. It is not open to the Court to substitute its opinion by re-appreciating the materials considered and
rejected by the statutory authority. The court is concerned only with the decision making process. The petitioner has no case that the impugned
order is perverse or capricious liable for correction by this Court.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while concluding his arguments submitted that in case this Court is of the view that the impugned
order is not liable to be quashed, liberty should be given to the petitioner file a civil suit and status quo should be preserved in the meantime.
There is no question of passing an interlocutory order while disposing of a matter. The interlocutory order would be valid only till the disposal
of the substantial matter.
The Supreme Court in Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others, indicated that it is not proper to grant interim
order till a party approaches an alternate forum with a prayer for interim relief. The Supreme Court said:
It is a settled legal proposition that the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief
to any litigant. If the court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said
party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the
alternative forum and obtains interim relief
In the upshot, I dismiss the writ petition. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. No costs.