(Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent with respect to the proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 22674/2012/A4 and quash the order dated 06.01.2025 as illegal, invalid and non-est since the same is not in accordance with law.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka. No. 22674/2012/A4 dated 06.01.2025, whereby the 1st respondent has cancelled the patta standing in the name of the petitioner and restored the same in the name of one A.Krishnappan in respect of the property comprised in S.No.45/14 and in the name of one V.Ganapathi Naicker in respect of the property comprised in S.No.48/12, as it stood prior to the UDR.

2. Mr.N.L.Raja, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Saravanakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally the subject property in S.Nos.45/14 and 48/12C, Village No.156, Mahabalipuram Village, Madura Devanari, Mahabalipuram Township, Chengalpattu Taluk, Chengalpattu District was purchased by one Rajeswari from one K.Loganathan vide sale deed dated 18.01.1991. Thereafter, the said Rajeswari sold a portion of the aforesaid land comprised in S.No.45/14 to an extent of 36 cents to V.Chandrasekar and the petitioner Saradha Chandrasekar vide sale deed dated 27.06.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband V.Chandrasekar settled his share in the subject property in favour of their sons, Siddarth Chandrasekar and Nishanth Chandrasekar by way of a settlement deed dated 10.05.2019. Subsequently, the said Siddarth Chandrasekar settled his share in the subject property in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner and her son Nishanth Chandrasekar are the true and absolute owners of the land comprised in S.No.45/14. Under such circumstances, the legal heirs of K.Loganathan, filed a suit in O.S.No.42 of 2019 before the District Munsif Court, Thirukazhukundram to declare the sale deed dated 18.01.1991 executed by K.Loganathan in favour of the petitioner’s vendor Rajeswari as null and void. In the said suit, the petitioner’s vendor was arrayed as 1st defendant and 4th respondent herein/Mathiyazhagan was arrayed as 4th defendant. The petitioner’s vendor Rajeswari filed an application in I.A.No.58 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, to reject the plaint in O.S.No.42 of 2019. The said I.A. was allowed by rejecting the suit filed by the legal heirs of K.Loganathan vide order dated 10.10.2022. The 4th respondent is also one of the party in the said application.

3. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that as the suit in O.S.No.42 of 2019 was rejected, the petitioner’s title and right over the subject property, acquired by virtue of the sale deed dated 18.01.1991 stands confirmed. The Patta No.1891 was also issued in favour of the petitioner and her husband in respect of the subject property. While so, the 4th respondent made a representation before the 1st respondent seeking to cancel the patta standing in the name of the petitioner and her family member on the ground that the 4th respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property based on the Power of Attorney executed by the legal heirs of A.Krishnappan and V.Ganapathi Naicker, who are the original owner of the subject property. The 1st respondent after conducting enquiry, cancelled the Patta No.1891 issued in the name of the petitioner and her husband and also the Patta No.545 issued in the name of the vendor of the petitioner’s vendor and restored in the name of original owners A.Krishnappan and V.Ganapathi Naickar.

4. He would also submit that since the petitioner’s title over the subject property has already been confirmed by the Civil Court and the said decree has not been challenged, the 1st respondent ought not to have cancelled the patta standing in the name of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. If the 4th respondent was aggrieved over the decree made in O.S.No.42 of 2019, he ought to have challenged the same before the appropriate forum. Without doing so, making a representation before the 1st respondent seeking cancellation of patta standing in the name of the petitioner is not proper. Even assuming that there was no decree in favour of the petitioner, once the patta had been issued in the name of the petitioner and if in the course of enquiry, the 1st respondent arrived at a conclusion that there is dispute regarding the title, he ought to have directed the parties concerned to approach the Civil Court. Instead, the 1st respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction and adjudicated upon the title to the subject property, for which he has no authority and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order.

5. To buttress his submissions, learned Senior Counsel referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Ltd., Vs. R.Perumalswamy and Other reported in (2021) 11 Supreme Court Cases 98.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that the suit in O.S.No.42 of 2019 was a collusive suit between the persons, who illegally mutated the Revenue Records on the basis of UDR. Since the plaintiff in O.S.No.42 of 2019 had no right or title over the subject property, the plaint was rejected. The 4th respondent had approached the 1st respondent challenging the illegal mutation of Revenue Records by the predecessors of the petitioner.

7. He would further submit that with regard to the land to an extent of 36 cents in S.No.45/14, the same was originally belonged to one Krishnappan. The said Krishnappan settled the aforesaid property to and in favour of Dhanammal, Vendarasi and Kanniappan through settlement deed dated 25.08.1969 in Document No.2201/1969 and subsequently through a General Power of Attorney Deed, the said Vendarasi and Kanniappan gave General Power to and in favour of the 4th respondent herein in respect of the land to an extent of 36 cents in S.No.45/14. With regard to the land to an extent of 31 cents in S.No.48/12, originally the same belonged to one Ganapathi Naicker. Subsequently, the successors in interest and the legal heirs of V.Ganapathi Naicker executed General Power of Attorney dated 27.07.2010, 25.02.2011 and 11.03.2025 in favour of the 4th respondent and thus, the 4th respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. The 1st respondent after conducting thorough enquiry and on the basis of the reports of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram, has restored the patta as it stood prior to the UDR.

8. Learned respective Government’s Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that even though the “A”-Register shows the name of K.Loganathan, the vendor of Rajeswari, there is no document to show how the said K.Loganathan acquired the subject property. Prior to the UDR, the name of A.Krishnappan and V.Ganapathi Naickar appears in the revenue records. As there is a title dispute among the parties, the 1st respondent restored the patta in the name of A.Krishnappan and V.Ganapathi Naickar, as it stood prior to UDR.

9. In reply, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is not in dispute that the name of K.Loganathan, the vendor of petitioner’s vendor appears in the Revenue Records. In such case, once the revenue records have been duly mutated in the name of K.Loganathan, who is the successor in title, the 1st respondent cannot now re-open the issue of title by conducting an enquiry with regard to the period prior to the UDR and decide the title.

10. Heard Mr.N.L.Raja, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Saravanakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.Inthu Karunakaran, learned Government’s Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2; Mr.Dominic S.David, learned Government’s Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for M/s. V.Srimathi, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

11. Considering the above submissions and perusal of the available records, it is evident that in the present case the petitioner’s vendor Rajeswari purchased the subject property in S.No.45/14 and S.No.48/12C by way of sale deed dated 18.01.1991 from K.Loganathan. Thereafter, the petitioner along with her husband purchased the subject property vide sale deed dated 27.06.2007 in Doc.No.5399 of 2007 and patta was issued in their favour. However, according to the 4th respondent, he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property by virtue of settlement deed dated 22.12.2009 and General Power of Attorney dated 27.07.2010, 25.02.2011 and 11.03.2025, which were executed in his favour by the successor in interest and the legal heirs of A.Krishnappan and V.Ganapathi Naickar, who are the original owners of the subject property. Therefore, he made a representation before the 1st respondent to cancel the patta standing in the name of the petitioner. Based on the representation filed by the 4th respondent, the impugned order has been passed by cancelling the patta issued in the name of the petitioner in Patta No.1891 and the same was restored in the name of A.Krishnappan and Ganapathi Naickar in Patta Nos.4496 (Old Patta No.31) and 4497 (Old Patta No.2) by arriving at a conclusion that the present dispute is civil in nature.

12. Once the 1st respondent has arrived at a conclusion that there is a title dispute, he ought to have directed the affected party to approach the Civil Court. Contrary to the same, in the present case though the 1st respondent has arrived at a conclusion that there is a title dispute between the parties, without any authority, the patta stood in the name of the petitioner was cancelled and restored in the name of one A.Krishnappan and Ganapathi Naickar and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court.

13. The O.S.No.42 of 2019 was filed by the legal heirs of K.Loganathan, seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed by K.Loganathan in favour of the petitioner’s vendor Rajeswari as null and void. The petitioner’s vendor filed an application in I.A.No.58 of 2020 seeking rejection of plaint and the said application was allowed on 10.10.2022. In the said suit, the 4th respondent was also impleaded as a party, however he neither participated in the proceedings nor contested the suit and remained ex-parte. When the 4th respondent was a party to the said suit and the challenge to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner’s vendor did not survive before the Civil Court, the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and her husband cannot be questioned by the 1st respondent. Taking note of the aforesaid aspect, the 1st respondent ought to have rejected the representation submitted by the 4th respondent. The petitioner’s right in respect of the subject property stood crystallised pursuant to the proceedings in O.S.No.42 of 2019 and the said order has not been challenged by any of the party to the suit including the 4th respondent. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent has no authority to cancel the Patta No.1891, which stands in the name of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. If at all anybody is aggrieved over the petitioner’s title, it is for those person to establish his/her right before the competent Civil Court and by way of application to cancel the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner.

14. Thus, the impugned order has been passed by the 1st respondent without proper application of mind and in excess of his jurisdiction, which constitutes a patent error warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside. Subsequently, the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner vide Patta no. 1891 stands restored. The respondents are directed to mutate the same in all the revenue records maintained with them within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.