@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Venugopal, J.@mdashThe Petitioner has projected the present instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for an issuance of order by this Court in calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the First Respondent in proceedings No. PPA/197/Z(SB)/(4) 2011/4103 and to quash the same. Further, he has also sought for issuance of an order in directing the First Respondent to consider the Petitioner''s application dated 02.02.2011 for granting approval to construct the three storied commercial building at R.S. No. 65/1, 65/3 and 65/5, East Coast Road, Saram Revenue Village, Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry. According to the Petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the property comprised in R.S. No. 65/1, 65/3 and 65/5, East Coast Road, Saram Revenue Village, Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry by means of Partition Deed dated 22.08.1972 in respect of R.S. No. 65/1 and R.S. No. 65/5 (corresponding cadastre No. 1375 and 1386) and by means of Release Deed dated 02.02.1996 in respect of R.S. No. 65/3 (corresponding cadastre No. 1385).
2. The Germane Facts of the Writ Petition:
The stand of the Petitioner is that he applied for planning permission before the First Respondent on 02.02.2011 to construct three storied commercial building in the aforesaid property and also paid necessary application fees to the first respondent. He received communication on 11.03.2011 from the First Respondent/Member Secretary, The Puducherry Planning Authority, Puducherry wherein it was stated that one (Malaiappan @ Thangaraj) filed a suit in O.S. No. 215 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. In the said suit, the Second Respondent filed I.A. No. 552 of 2008 praying for injunction restraining the Respondents and others not to put up construction in the property. On receipt of communication, he sent an explanation through Advocate by on 12.03.2011 by narrating the fact that R.S. No. 65/1, 65/3 and 65/5 are not the subject matter of the suit property filed in O.S. No. 215 of 2008. Moreover, it was also stated that the Petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in question. The First Respondent received his explanation on 14.03.2011. But, to his shock, he received an impugned order dated 21.09.2011 from the First Respondent stating that application seeking for approval for construction of three storied commercial building in respect of R.S. No. 65/1, 65/3 and 65/5, East Coast Road, Saram Revenue Village, Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry can be considered only after the outcome of the judgment in O.S. No. 215 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry.
3. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the First Respondent/Member Secretary, The Puducherry Planning Authority, Puducherry has passed the impugned order dated 21.09.2011 without application of mind and also without considering the Petitioner''s explanation dated 12.03.2011. Further more, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the Second Respondent filed the suit in O.S. No. 215 of 2008 on the file of the trial court as regards property comprised in R.S. Nos. 65/1A, 1/B, 1A/B and other items of properties.
4. According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner understands that one Soundararajan, who was the panel Advocate for the First Respondent appeared against the writ petitioner in respect of the same property in O.S. No. 1919 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry. It appears that First Respondent had obtained a legal opinion from the same counsel and passed the impugned order as such the said order is liable to be quashed in the eye of law and also that the said order has been passed with a mala fide intention and at the instigation of the Second Respondent.
5. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that the First Respondent/Member Secretary, The Puducherry Planning Authority, Puducherry should have considered the Petitioner''s application to construct the three storied commercial building at R.S. No. 65/1, 65/3 and 65/5 East Coast Road, Saram Revenue Village, Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry which is not the subject matter of the suit filed in O.S. No. 215 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry. Hence, on this ground alone is liable to be quashed for non application of mind.
6. The First Respondent has not filed counter to the Writ Petition.
7. Per Contra, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the Second Respondent that Second Respondent filed W.P. No. 18127 of 2007 on the file of this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the authorities to initiate action for the offences under the Land Grabbing Act based on G.O.(Ms.) No. 38 dated 23.11.1998. This Court on 23.05.2007, directed the authorities to initiate action within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Subsequently, authorities enquired into the matter based on the direction issued by this Court.
8. The Learned counsel for the Second Respondent brings it to the notice of this Court that one Palanivelu filed W.P. No. 23852 of 2008 on the file of this Court for issuance of Writ of Certiorari seeking to quash the proceedings No. 6097/B2/Rev/2008 in No. 10059/B2G/Rev/2006 issued by the District Collector, Puducherry touching the very same property rejecting his request by order dated 12.08.2008.
9. After considering the matter in an elaborate manner, this Court passed a final order on 17.12.2008, issuing five points of directions to the District Collector, Puducherry, the First Respondent therein and also directed him to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Earlier, even on 21.01.2008, the District Collector issued orders narrating the various litigations that are pending before the Civil Court in respect of various properties concerned in dispute and also observed that since the subject matter involves right of parties over the properties, he could pass final order only after the Civil Court rendered final verdict in the pending civil cases.
10. When that be the situation, it comes to be known that one Kathirvel Pillai filed another petition before the District Collector, requesting him to implead him in the pending proceedings which was rejected by the District Collector by order dated 21.08.2008. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition in an ill-conceived fashion, on the ground that as if his claim was rejected by the District Collector, Puducherry when in fact he challenges the clarification letter.
11. Apart from the above, it transpires that in O.S. No. 215 of 2008, filed by the Second Respondent an interim injunction order was passed on 23.08.2012 in and by which, the Learned II Additional District Munsif, Puducherry was pleased to observe that Rathnammal @ Sivagami and Tamilselvi, proposed defendants 33 and 34 are trying to put up construction and hence, granted an interim injunction against them. Whereas in the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner, claims as if he has applied for sanction plan to construct a three storied commercial building in the disputed premises as if the First Respondent rejected the matter in issue holding that the same would not be considered inspite of his explanation etc.
12. Indeed, the First Respondent/District Collector on 15.11.2012 passed order in his proceedings No. 6097/Rev/B2G/2008 mentioning that in respect of the petition premises, status quo to be maintained till the disposal of the Civil Suits preferred by Palanivel and Thenmozhi and the Second Respondent. Added further, the First Respondent/District Collector directed entries in the Settlement Register shall remain in the name of Palanivel and Thenmozhi and granted opportunities to the parties to prove their title and ownership over the property before the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction and necessary changes in the Settlement Register.
13. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner informs this Court that the First Respondent/District Collector in his latest order on 15.11.2012 has passed the following order:
J. With the material placed before this Authority it is understood that as many as two writ petitions, viz., W.P. No. 12331/2010 and W.P. No. 16161 of 2010 are alive in the Hon''ble High Court, Madras. Further three civil suits are at various stages of disposal in lower courts.
and only for that reason, he has ordered to maintain status quo.
14. The pith and substance of the submission of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner is that it is not open to the Writ Petitioner to challenge the impugned communication issued by the First Respondent dated 21.09.2011 seeking certain clarification from him as it is not the order of rejection of claim made by the First Respondent.
15. By means of Reply, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner forcibly submits that though it is the specific case of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition that land comprising R.S. No. 65/1, 65/3 and 65/5 absolutely belongs to him. The Second Respondent has no right over the property and it is not the subject matter of the suit filed in O.S. No. 215 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry.
16. It is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Second Respondent filed the suit in O.S. No. 215 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry in respect of the property comprising Survey No. 90/3, 90/6, 90/7 and 90/8 of Karavadi Kuppam Revenue Village and survey No. 65/1A 1B 1A1B of Saram Revenue Village. According to the Petitioner, his land comprising in Survey No. 65/1 has been sub-divided into Survey No. 65/1/B/2 of Saram Revenue Village and it is not related to the suit property in O.S. No. 215 of 2008 on the file of the trial Court and it is entirely different. Further more, patta has been issued to him in respect of the property comprised in Survey No. 65/1/B/2. In effect, the contention of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner is that pendency of suit in O.S. No. 215 of 2008 has no bearing on his application for grant of building permission in respect of the property comprised in Survey No. 65/1/B/2, 63 and 65 of Saram Revenue Village and also that no restraint order has been ordered against him in the suit. As such, the impugned order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the First Respondent is not legally sustainable.
17. A mere running of the eye over the description of property in I.A. No. 552 of 2008 on the file of the Learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry indicates that Serial. No. 4 in resurvey No. 65/1 1A1B and Serial No. 6 relating to resurvey No. 65/1A 1/B 1A1B are concerned with the suit proceedings, which are admittedly pending and that too in part heard stage.
18. Earlier on 03.10.2012, this Court in CRP (PD) 1617 of 2012 and M.P. No. 1 of 2012 (filed by the Petitioners one Palanivel and Thenmozhi against the Second Respondent Malaiappan) this Court while dismissing the revision petition has directed the Learned II Additional District Munsif, Puducherry, that the suits O.S. No. 110 of 2008 and O.S. No. 215 of 2008 should be tried either jointly or order for simultaneous trial and further directed to dispose of the said suits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. At this stage, the Learned counsel for the Second Respondent brings it to the notice of this Court that both the above said suits are pending before the Learned II Additional District Munsif, Puducherry in part heard stage. It is also represented before this Court that writ petitioner is defendant No. 29 in O.S. No. 215 of 2008 on the file of the trial court. At this stage, this Court more pertinently points out that even though the direction has been issued by this Court in CRP No. 1617/2012 to the trial Court to dispose of the two suits in O.S. No. 110 of 2008 and O.S. No. 215 of 2008 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, it is pellucidly clear that the said suits have not been disposed of within time frame adumbrated by this Court. Per contra, the said two suits are pending on the file of the Learned II Additional District Munsif as on date. Also that, it appears that the suit in O.S. No. 1919 of 2006 on the file of the Learned I Additional District Munsif, Puducherry has been dismissed for default.
19. It cannot be gainsaid that this Court as early as on 17.06.1985 has issued Roc. No. 2065/85/F1 Circular (P.Dis. No. 101/85) issuing certain instructions for strict adherence of the Judicial Orders passed by this Court. For appreciating the content and tenure of the aforesaid Circular, this Court to prevent aberration of justice makes useful reference of the same which runs as follows:
Several instances have come to the notice of the High Court that whenever certain specific directions are given by the High Court to the Subordinate Courts, particularly directions:
1) to dispose of any proceeding pending on their file, within a specified time limit, or
2) to record a finding on any issue or fact referred to therein by the High Court under Order XII, Rule 25 of the code of Civil Procedure, within a specified time-limit,
the subordinate Courts concerned, neither dispose of such proceeding within the time-limit specified, record the finding or the fact and submit the report to the High Court within the time-limit specified by the High Court nor seek from the High Court any extension of time well in advance for complying with the directions given by the High Court.
The High Court views seriously such lapses and delays of the Subordinate Courts in carrying out the directions given by the High Court.
All the subordinate Courts are hereby informed that whenever any direction, as stated supra, is given by the High Court, the Subordinate Courts concerned-
1) Should dispose of the proceeding pending on their file within the time specified in the order of the High Court and report the fact to the High Court immediately after disposing of the proceeding concerned; and
2) Should make a request to the High Court for extension of time for carrying out the directions well in advance of the date specified in the order of the High Court, stating the reasons therefore, and the further time required, if for any reason the Subordinate Court concerned is not able to comply with the order of the High Court within the time specified.
All the Subordinate Courts are further informed the any lapse or delay in this regard will be viewed seriously.
20. That apart, this Court has also reiterated the aforesaid Circular by issuing Circulars in Roc. No. 6640-A/2008/F1, dated 23.01.2009 (R.Dis. No. 6/2009) and in Roc. No. 1012-A/2010/F1, dated 09.04.2010 (P.Dis. No. 48/2010).
21. At the risk of repetition, this Court points out that in the impugned order dated 21.09.2011, the First Respondent/District Collector, Puducherry passed an order inter alia requesting the writ petitioner to submit the judgment in O.S. No. 215 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry for processing his case further.
22. Even in the order dated 15.11.2012 (based on the petitions submitted by Palanivel and Thenmozhi), the First Respondent has passed an elaborate order in paragraphs 24 and 25, it is specifically observed and directed as under:
24. This Authority would like to put on record the following important points:
a. This proceeding that commenced in 2008 has been going on till date due to many reasons like conduct of General Elections, writ petitions filed by the petitioners/respondents in the Hon''ble High Court, submission of many petitions, seeking of time by parties etc.
b. This Authority commenced the enquiry proceeding in compliance with the directions of the Hon''ble High Court in W.P. No. 6097 of 2008.
c. The petitioners and the respondents have submitted to this Authority for patta in favour in respect of land located at R.S. No. 65/1B of Saram revenue village. In the guise of seeking patta, they have sought to establish their ownership and title on the said disputed property before this Authority. This Authority is not empowered to adjudicate on title or ownership of properties.
d. The petitioners and respondents have in this process challenged the documents filed by the opposite parties in their affidavits. The petitioners have alleged forgery on one of the will submitted by the petitioner which was marked as "Exhibit 1".
e. Having obtained certain documents which were marked as Exhibits on the pretext of submitting the same to Hon''ble High Court, the first Respondent has failed to return the same to this Authority. The documents were given to the first respondent in good faith even though the petitioners have objected to it and also alleged that one of the exhibits may be forged. Further, as directed by this authority the first respondent have also failed to make discovery on oath of all the three documents which have been marked and admitted in evidence in the proceedings.
f. The first respondent''s claim that he is the only legal heir in respect of the disputed property has been correctly challenged by the petitioners and the Second respondent herein. With the possibility of claims from other legal heirs, the first Respondent cannot contend that he alone is entitled for the property in dispute.
g. It is not known to this Authority as to why the second respondent took so much time to stake his claim. It is also not known whether he has impleaded himself in the legal proceedings pending in the civil courts in the same issue. The delay in getting himself impleaded also casts doubts on the motives of the Second Respondent.
h. The Respondents have obviously failed to record their objections during resurvey operations undertaken during the late 1970''s and have not submitted any reasons for the same. This implies that the disputed land have never been under the possession of the respondents.
i. On the other hand, the petitioners are the registered holders of the land in dispute and have possession of the same. Patta also stands registered in the name of the petitioners.
j. With the material placed before this Authority it is understood that as many as two writ Petitions, viz., W.P. No. 12331 of 2010 and W.P. No. 16161 of 2010 are live in the Hon''ble High Court, Madras. Further, three civil suits are at various stages of disposal in lower courts.
25. In view of the above, this Authority hereby directs that the status quo of the land in dispute shall be maintained till the disposal of the Civil Suits preferred by the petitioners and the first respondent. Entries in the Settlement Register shall remain in the name of the petitioners. The respondents are at liberty to prove their title and ownership over the property in dispute in competent courts of jurisdiction and then seek changes in the settlement register. Accordingly, the petitions filed by the petitioners and the respondents are hereby disposed.
23. In the upshot of detailed qualitative and quantitative discussions and this Court on a careful consideration of entire conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case in an attendant fashion (which floats on the surface) comes to an irresistible and inescapable conclusion that the First Respondent has not passed the impugned order dated 21.09.2011 finally and as only requested the Petitioner to submit the judgment of O.S. No. 215 of 2008 on the file of the trial Court and also even in the subsequent order dated 15.11.2012 (based on the petition filed by the Palanivel and others), the First Respondent has ultimately directed status quo of the land to be maintained till the disposal of the Civil suits etc. To put it succinctly, this order has not been challenged by the Petitioner (notwithstanding the fact that he has not given any representation or the petition to the First Respondent) and in paragraph 5 of the order of the First Respondent dated 15.11.2012 in S. No. 5 and 6 there is a reference to R.S. No. 65/1A and R.S. No. 65/1B of Saram Revenue village which are said to be connected with issues involved in O.S. No. 215 of 2008 on the file of the trial Court.
24. Be that as it may, this Court on going through the order of the First Respondent dated 21.09.2011 and also this Court taking note of the subsequent order dated 15.11.2012 passed by the First Respondent holds that the impugned order dated 21.09.2011 does not suffer from any impropriety or material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of law. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition sans merits. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
