Decided on July 27,2019

Institute Of The Brothers Of St.Patrick Appellant


M.DURAISWAMY, J. - (1.) The above Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 27.07.2019, to quash the same and direct the respondents to restore status quo ante in respect of the property measuring an extent of 2 hectares 10 ares and 40 square metres of land in Block No.24, T.S.No.2, Old Survey No.2/2B2PT, 2/2APT, 2/2BPT and 2/1PT, as it stood prior to 10.8.2019.
(2.) Earlier, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.23787 of 2019 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the 1st respondent from dispossessing the Petitioner Institution from the lands mentioned above till the disposal of the Suit in O.S. No. 4413 of 2005 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. When the said Writ Petition was moved for admission on 10.08.2019, it was informed by the 1st respondent that they have already taken possession of the land on the said date i.e. 10.08.2019 itself. When the said Writ Petition came up for hearing on 28.08.2019, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has challenged the notice issued under Sections 220 and 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 in the present Writ Petition, the said Writ Petition may be dismissed. In view of the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, we have dismissed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.23787 of 2019 on 28.08.2019 by a separate order.
(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question was classified in revenue records as " Vilayattu Maidanam"? (Playground) without showing the name of the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner, the said land was also in effective possession, control and enjoyment of the petitioner and the same was being used by the petitioner as Playground. In these circumstances, the petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar, Mylapore, for rectifying the mistake and for grant of patta in their favour in respect of the land measuring an extent of 10 acres and 2 grounds as well. The Tahsildar, Mylapore, by order dated 03.12.2003, rejected the petitioner's application. 3.2 After the rejection of the petitioner's application, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No. 4413 of 2005 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for declaration and permanent injunction, against the District Collector, Chennai and the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai and also obtained an ex parte decree dated 23.08.2005. 3.3 Challenging the order dated 03.12.2003, passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Chennai on 14.07.2004. The said appeal was forwarded by the District Collector, Chennai by the proceedings dated 21.08.2012 to the District Revenue Officer, Chennai, who is the competent authority to exercise the general power to entertain the appeals. By order dated 28.12.2012, the District Revenue Officer, declined to interfere with the order passed by the Tahsildar for the grant of patta for the land in dispute for the reason that the said land is classified as "Sarkar Poromboke, Chennai Corporation Vilayattu Maidanam Nagarasabai Vilaiyattu Maidhanam"?. 3.4 As against the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration and the Revisional Authority also dismissed the Revision by the order dated 25.07.2013. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.