K. Meenakshisundaram 6/258 MMDA Madhuravoil, Chennai 95 vs The Executive Officer Maduravoyal Panchayat, Maduravoyal and Mrs. Sangeetha 371/3 Temple Colony, 15th Main Road Anna Nagar, Chennai 40

Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma

The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No. 1 to

conduct enquiry on the representation of the petitioner dated 05.03.2011 and 04.11.2011. The petitioner is the co-owner of the property situate at

Plot No. 8, Viswas Nagar, Maduravoyal having purchased it from the owner Mrs. Molly Alxander through Power of Attorney Mr. Hanuman

Prasad. The petitioner acquired the title to the property and applied for grant of patta which was refused on the ground that patta was granted in

favour of the respondent No. 2.

The case of the petitioner is that there is disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, which are pending adjudication in the civil

Court at Poonamallee Court. The petitioner also succeeded in getting injunction against the respondent No. 2 in the civil dispute.

The case of the petitioner is that injunction order was violated by the respondent No. 2, against which the petitioner has initiated proceedings for

violation of injunction order.

The case of the petitioner further is that the proceedings initiated by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for acquisition of land also stands dropped

and patta applied by the petitioner was refused and granted in favour of the respondent No. 2 qua part of the land.

Even though the petitioner has statutory remedy to file an appeal against the order passed by the Tahsildar, for the reasons best known has only

filed representation to cancel the patta granted in favour of the respondent No. 2.

The petitioner also had approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 28872 of 2007 for direction to dispose of the representation. In pursuance to

the order passed by this Court, the Tahsildar issued notice to the authorities and rejected the request of the petitioner whereas in W.P. No. 4828

of 2009, on the direction issued by this Court on 01.04.2009, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, accepted the title of the petitioner''s

predecessor, and passed order directing the Tahsildar to identify, measure and demarcate the property.

It is also the case of the petitioner that as against the order of Tahsildar, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal, but no action was taken in the

appeal. The petitioner again filed W.P. No. 24818 of 2011 where direction was issued to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal with 8

weeks.

The facts pleaded show that the matter is pending in the Civil Court for adjudication of right of the petitioner regarding ownership of the

property. The petitioner has initiated the number of proceedings in this Court, before the Revenue authorities, and also before the Civil Court. The

respondent No. 2 also filed W.P. No. 29179 of 2010 without impleading the petitioner as party, wherein direction was issued to the respondent to

conduct enquiry and pass an order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner.

On being questioned as to how the respondent could invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for directing the Tahsildar to hold enquiry

regarding encroachment of private land, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the State of Tamil Nadu, it is the Tahsildar who decide

the land dispute and not the civil Court, as the civil Court jurisdiction is only to grant injunction and not to determine title. This stand is totally

misconceived being contrary to law and also in view of the fact that parties filed civil suits for determining right and title.

This stand only shows that the respondent misled this Court for issuing direction to the respondent No. 1 for holding enquiry into the matter,

without making the petitioner as party. No statutory remedy was also availed to seek demarcation of the property.

Whereas case of the petitioner on the other hand is that Tahsildar conducted enquiry without issuing notice to the parties. This contention again

deserves to be noticed to be rejected, as the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to enquire into this question, specially in view of the pendency of the civil

suit. The Tahsildar is required to only decide question regarding grant of patta under the statutes which stipulates issuance of notice to all the

parties.

The petitioner further claims that he has applied for approval of building plan, which was not accepted as the property described is road in the

approved lay out of Varalakshmi Nagar.

The petitioner instead of challenging the order of Executive Officer in accordance with law, simply filed representation to verify the authenticity

of the alleged plan. The representations being not statutory in nature, and cannot advance the case of the petitioner nor it can be a ground to set

aside the order passed in exercise of power under a statute. It was for the petitioner to work out his remedy against refusal of the order passed by

the competent authority.

The case of the petitioner is also that the first respondent directed the petitioner to remove the compound wall on the ground that the area is

shown as road in Layout No. 82/73. The proceedings of the first respondents cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or illegal, as the petitioner

has not challenged the order in accordance with law.

As already observed above, the only prayer in this writ petition is to direct the Tahsildar to hold enquiry on the basis of representation filed by

the petitioner. This prayer is again misconceived as Tahsildar cannot hold enquiry to determine rights of the parties, which falls within the

jurisdiction of civil Court and the cases filed by both the parties are pending in civil Court. The petitioner has also failed to avail statutory remedy

against the order passed by the authorities from time to time.

It is the case of the petitioner that the property is situated within the Corporation of Chennai, and that the respondent No. 1 is not competent to

take possession. Inspite of this, the petitioner has approached this Court to issue direction to the respondent No. 1 to hold enquiry. The prayer on

the face of it is contrary to the pleaded case, that the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction in the matter. The facts of this case shows that the

parties to litigation instead of working out their remedy simply file representations to collector and Tahsildar and approached this Court for

issuance of writ of mandamus, without disclosing the legal right and corresponding legal obligation of the respondent to address grievance. It would

be seen that the writ petition is not bonafide, and has been filed with some ulterior motive to take advantage in the civil suit pending between the

parties.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No cost.