Putharmal Bafna vs The Madurai Corporation & Ors.

(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)

Challenging the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the second respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

The entire property comprised in Survey No.374, Ayan Papakudi Village, Madurai South Taluk, measuring an extent of 12 acres and 14 cents, was originally owned by Ayothiya Naidu. He sold the said property to one Paramasivam Pillai by way of a registered sale deed dated 19.11.1940.

Subsequently, Paramasivam Pillai sold an extent of 11 acres and 26 cents to various persons by way of registered sale deeds and retained an extent of 88 cents. After the demise of Paramasivam Pillai, his legal heirs succeeded to the remaining extent of 88 cents in Survey No.374 and obtained a joint patta bearing Patta No.1016 in respect of the said extent in Survey No.374, which was subsequently sub-divided as Survey No.374/1B.

The legal heirs of Paramasivam Pillai, namely, Alamelu and others, executed a registered sale deed dated 09.07.2014, conveying an extent of 70 cents in Survey No.374/1B, with specific four boundaries, in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said sale deed, the petitioner took possession of the property.

Thereafter, the third respondent made a complaint before the first respondent seeking removal of the alleged encroachment, contending that the petitioner had encroached upon a pathway allegedly formed by the third respondent.

Pursuant to the said complaint, the first respondent passed the impugned proceedings directing eviction of the petitioner from the property comprised in Survey No.374/1B. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that, admittedly, the third respondent is a purchaser of a plot from one C.K. Murugan and his legal heirs, who had formed a private layout in the entire extent of land. However, the said layout does not form part of the 70 cents purchased by the petitioner from Alamelu, who is one of the legal heirs of Paramasivam Pillai.

It is further submitted that the said C.K. Murugan and others had earlier preferred a complaint before the District Registrar under Section 77-A of the Stamps Act, seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 09.07.2014 in respect of the 70 cents comprised in Survey No.374/1B. The Deputy Registrar, by order dated 13.09.2022, cancelled the said sale deed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.3204 of 2024 before this Court and the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 08.08.2025.

It is further submitted that, in view of the subsequent development, the petitioner has become the owner of the property in question. Even otherwise, there is no gift deed executed in favour of the Corporation in respect of the subject property. In the absence of any such gift deed, the Corporation cannot claim any right over the property merely on the basis of the revenue records and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, fairly submitted that, as on date, there is no gift deed executed in favour of the Corporation and the revenue records do not disclose possession of the subject property by the Corporation. It is submitted that the impugned order came to be passed on the basis of the third respondent's complaint and the order passed by the District Registrar. However, in view of the subsequent development, particularly the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.3204 of 2024, liberty may be granted to the respondents 1 and 2 to work out their remedy in the manner known to law.

In view of the fair submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained, particularly when there is no material to establish that the subject property had been gifted in favour of the Corporation or that the Corporation is in possession of the same.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents 1 and 2 to work out their remedy in the manner known to law, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.