T R DINAKARAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent dated 24.07.2006 and consequently, seeking for a direction to the respondents to conduct O.S. No. 63 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif at Aruppukottai, without any reference to the said order and decided the issues on merits. The case of the petitioner is that an extent of 2.02 Acres at Survey No. 205/4, Aruppukottai village belonged to him. Out of the total extent of 2.02 Acres, an extent of 82 cents was acquired by the Government for formation of a bye pass road and the balance extent of 1.20 Acre was reclassified as ward 'F' Block 10, T.S. No. 5/4c1 and ward 'F' Block 10, T.S. No. 5/4c2. The said property is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner for more than 40 years and patta also stands in the name of the petitioner under patta No. 949. When 82 cents of land was acquired, the first respondent herein paid compensation to the petitioner and therefore, the title over the said property under Survey No. 205/4 measuring 1 Acre 20 cents is accepted by the first respondent and therefore he is estopped from denying it. Likewise an extent of 86 cents at Survey No. 205/5 was also acquired for the formation of bye pass road from the husband of the 5th respondent and the father of the respondents 6 to 9. The petitioner and the father of the respondents 6 to 9, namely, Late. T.R. Subbaraj are brothers. His brother, namely, one late. T.R. Subbaraj never objected to the payment of compensation to the petitioner in respect of Survey No. 205/4. It is further stated by the petitioner that the 4th respondent approached the petitioner for the lease of a portion of land at Survey No. 205/4 and accordingly, a lease deed was executed on 02.08.1993. The said lease is for 15 years and the 4th respondent was running a Petrol Bunk, as tenant of the petitioner. However, the 4th respondent got a sale deed executed in respect of the said property from the respondents 6 to 8 as if they are the owners of the said property. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 63 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai for declaration and mandatory injunction. However, the respondents 4, 6 to 8 approached the respondents 1 and 2 and sought for cancellation of patta as well as mutation of the records. The second respondent rightly refused to effect any mutation on the ground that the civil suit is pending with regard to the title. On the other hand, the first respondent by way of the impugned order dated 24.07.2006 cancelled the patta which stood in the name of the petitioner and consequently, granted the patta in favour of the respondents 4, 6, 7 and 8 for survey No. 205/4 measuring an extent of 1.20 Acre. Hence, the writ petition is filed by the petitioner. It is also stated by the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has acted illegally and therefore, an enquiry has to be ordered against him to be conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, namely, the 10th respondent herein.

(2.) Notice of motion was ordered by this Court on 16.11.2006 and after notice, the respondents entered appearance. The first respondent was arrayed in his personal capacity as 3rd respondent. The first respondent has not filed any counter. However, when this Court has directed the first respondent to produce the file relating to this case, he filed an affidavit and stated that the file was destroyed in the year 2011, after obtaining the approval of the Revenue Divisional Officer through his proceedings dated 13.06.2004 as it is the practice to destroy three years old files.

(3.) The third respondent filed a counter affidavit and stated that he had discharged his function and co-operated with the authorities and absolutely there are no motives. In respect of survey Nos. 205/4 and 205/5 the petition was filed on 22.08.2005 and 06.03.2006 seeking transfer of patta. After issuing notice and after considering the objection filed by the parties, the third respondent passed final order on 24.07.2006. It is also contended by the third respondent that the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S. No. 63 of 2006 is in respect of an extend of 36 cents in survey No. 205/4c, whereas, the transfer of patta proceedings relates to total extent of 3.31 Acre Survey No. 205/4 and 5 and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that the civil suit covered the entire property. He has rendered more than 20 years of service without any adverse orders. Accordingly, the third respondent is totally an unnecessary party to be impleaded in his individual capacity.