@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
B. Rajendran, J.@mdashThe petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider his representation dated 24.12.2013 and to issue patta in his favour.
2. The petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in Survey No. 243 measuring an extent of 6.50 acres at Thervoy Kandigai Village and Post, Gummudipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District for more than 40 years. According to the petitioner, he had put up a thatched shed in a portion of the land and he is in possession over the same and in the remaining lands, he has raised crops and cultivating the same. It is claimed that the petitioner also raised Mango trees, Tamarind trees and other trees within the said property. It is stated by the petitioner that this land is classified as Tharisu Porombokku in the revenue records and he is in occupation, possession and enjoyment of the same for several years. The petitioner also claims that he is paying house tax to the authorities concerned and also obtained family card and voter identity card in the above address. According to the petitioner, his name has been entered in the revenue records corresponding to Survey No. 243 (Old Survey Number) and he is in possession of various documents to prove such possession.
3. It is contended by the petitioner that the fifth respondent, who is an utter stranger, had attempted to grab the property. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent trespassed into the property in his possession on several occasion during the last 11 years in the guise of conducting katta Panchayat even during mid night. It is further stated that the fifth respondent trespassed into the property of the petitioner on 18.12.2001 by threat and coercion. On the same day, the petitioner has given a complaint to the Padirivedu Madarapakkam Police Station, with no result. Thereafter also, the petitioner has given complaint to the very same police station on 09.04.2013, but it was not entertained and they even refused to take the complaint on file. In the representation dated 09.04.2013, the petitioner sought for police protection to protect his life and that of his family members. As there was no action taken on such complaint, complaining inaction on the part of the police officials, the petitioner has filed Crl. O.P. No. 12716 of 2013 before this Court and on 23.05.2013, this Court disposed of the Criminal Original Petition with a direction to the third respondent to register the complaint dated 09.04.2013 given by the petitioner and register a first information report in accordance with law, if the allegations raised therein discloses any act of commission of cognisable offence. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner also filed a suit in O.S. No. 207 of 2013 before the District Munsif Court, Ponneri for permanent injunction and the suit is pending. It is mainly contended by the petitioner that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question till date. The petitioner also made a representation on 24.12.2013 to the first respondent, copies of which were marked to the respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner also sent representations to the Honourable Chief Minister Grievance Cell on 24.12.2013 but so far his grievances have not been met. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the representation dated 24.12.2013 of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents 1 to 4 till date and therefore he prayed for issuing appropriate direction to pass orders on the representation dated 24.12.2013 of the petitioner.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would contend that the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are not correct. The claim made by the petitioner for issuing patta in his favour is belated. While so, the present writ petition is not maintainable and it has to be dismissed in limine.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, relying on the counter affidavit, would submit that the petitioner is not at all in possession of the property in question. The petitioner has not filed a single document before this Court to prove his possession. On the other hand, the fifth respondent has produced Patta, Chitta Adangal, proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, the Sale deed dated 04.10.1962 as documents along with the typed set of papers. In fact, the fifth respondent purchased 20 acres of land from the original owner Rangasamy Naidu by way of a sale deed dated 04.10.1962 and from that date, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. It is stated that patta in respect of the property was issued in the name of the fifth respondent in patta No. 463 and the fifth respondent has fenced this property on all sides. The property is provided with a gate and the fifth respondent is in possession of the key. In fact, the petitioner attempted to claim title over the property and therefore, the fifth respondent has filed a comprehensive suit in O.S. No. 292 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ponneri for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of thatched hut from the petitioner measuring 40 X 40 feet on the south western portion of 28 acres and for consequential injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the fifth respondent. The said suit was decreed against which the petitioner has not preferred any appeal. The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 292 of 2004 therefore binds the petitioner and it reached a finality. The petitioner, without disclosing the details relating to the suit in O.S. No. 292 of 2004 has filed this writ petition and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for non-furnishing of material facts. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent further submitted that the property tax or house tax receipt produced by the petitioner do not relate to the property in question. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that earlier, the petitioner has filed a suit against one Venkatesan and another in O.S. No. 138 of 2001 as if the said persons attempted to disturb the possession of the petitioner. The said suit was dismissed for default on 05.01.2007. Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri has initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of the petitioner and ultimately, in the said proceedings, a finding was given to the effect that the fifth respondent is the absolute owner of the property in question. This finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri has not been assailed by the petitioner in a manner known to law. Later on, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 207 of 2013 for permanent injunction against the fifth respondent, her husband and son even though the husband of the fifth respondent died much before the filing of the suit. In other words, the suit was filed against a dead person. In the said suit, the fifth respondent has filed her counter and written statement and the suit is pending. In any event, when the competent authority viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri has given a categorical finding in the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Cr. P.C. even in the year 2004, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is nothing but an attempt to harass the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent is a senior citizen and she does not have any men or muscle power, as alleged by the petitioner. The fifth respondent is in possession of the property in question from 1962 and the petitioner is not in possession of the property at all. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition with unclean hands and made irrelevant statements to mislead this Court. The averment that the fifth respondent attempted to land grab the property in question is false and it is the petitioner who, by filing this writ petition, is indirectly attempting to grab the property of the fifth respondent. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent, placing reliance on the Division Bench of this Court, in which I am a party, in the case of
7. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. On appreciation of the rival contention, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition by suppressing many material particulars. In other words, the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. It is clear from the counter affidavit of the fifth respondent that Patta No. 463 was issued in the name of the fifth respondent long back while so, the consequential prayer of the petitioner to grant patta in his name in respect of the same property cannot be countenanced. It is needless to mention that it is for the petitioner to assail the order issuing patta in favour of the fifth respondent in a manner known to law, but he has no done so.
8. Even as admitted by the petitioner, the fifth respondent trespassed into his property 11 years ago. While so, only in the year 2003, the petitioner sent a representation i.e., on 24.12.2013, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents seeking issuance of patta in his favour. Of course, the petitioner also filed Crl. O.P. No. 12716 of 2013 in which this Court passed an order dated 23.05.2013 directing the investigation officer to register a case, if there exists a cognisable offence and to proceed further in accordance with law.
9. In order to contravert the pleadings of the petitioner, the fifth respondent has produced the sale deed dated 04.10.1962, the proceedings dated 05.04.2007 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, the petition in I.A. No. 1133 of 2013 in O.S. No. 207 of 2013 filed by the petitioner besides the Chitta, Adangal and Patta in her favour. It is evident from the documents produced by the fifth respondent that the petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 207 of 2013 against the fifth respondent and six others praying for a bare injunction to restrain the defendants in the suit from interfering with the possession of the petitioner or to act in any manner which would prove to be detrimental to his interest. The averments in the Petition for interim injunction is verbatim the averments made in the present writ petition. From the proceedings dated 05.04.2007 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri it is categorically indicated that it is the fifth respondent who is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. In fact, a finding was rendered to the effect that such possession vests with the fifth respondent from the year 1962.
10. The petitioner has not produced any documents in support of his claim. The petitioner has merely produced the various representations sent by him to various authorities, including the respondents 1 to 4 herein. The petitioner also filed the plaint in O.S. No. 207 of 2013 but it is evident that there was no order of interim injunction granted in the suit. The petitioner also filed the representations/complaint given by him to the Police authorities and the order dated 23.05.2013 passed by this Court in Crl. OP No. 12716 of 2013. In the complaint, the petitioner merely claimed that he is in possession of the property in question for over 30 years. To prove such possession, there is no documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. In those circumstance, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider his representation need not be granted. In this context, reference can be made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in
18. We may also note that sometimes the High Court dispose of the matter merely with a direction to the authority to ''consider'' the matter without examining the issue raised even though the facts necessary to decide the correctness of the order are available. Neither pressure of work nor the complexity of the issue can be a reason for the court to avoid deciding the issue which requires to be decided, and disposing of the matter with a direction to ''consider'' the matter afresh. Be that as it may.
19. There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of ''pliable'' authorities have misused the direction ''to consider'' issued by Court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time-barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to ''consider'' and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to ''consider'', the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to ''consider'' the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order ''to consider'' as directing rant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to ''consider'' may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of the court''s direction ''to consider'' the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily-wagers seeking regularisation/absorption in to regular service is a species of cases, where there has been large-scale misuse of the orders ''to consider''.
20. Therefore, while disposing of the writ petition with a direction ''to consider'', there is a need for the High Court to make the direction clear and specific. The order should clearly indicate whether the High Court is recording any finding about the entitlement of the petitioner to the relief or whether the petition is being disposed of without examining the claim on merits. The court should also normally fix a time-frame for consideration and decision. If no time frame is fixed and if the authority does not decide the matter, the direction of the court becomes virtually infructuous as the aggrieved petitioner will have to come again to court with a fresh writ petition or file an application for fixing time for deciding the matter.
11. Thus, it is evident from the decision of this Court that mere direction to consider one''s representation will result in adverse consequences and it will give rise to renewing a stale, untenable or dead claim. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of this case. If the direction sought for in this writ petition is issued, it would result in adverse consequences, besides it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Further, there are civil suit pending and the petitioner can take recourse to such proceedings.
12. Another important aspect to be noted is the petitioner has clearly suppressed the factum of the suit filed by the fifth respondent in O.S. No. 292 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ponneri against the petitioner herein for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of thatched hut from the petitioner measuring 40 X 40 feet on the south western portion of 28 acres and for consequential injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with her possession. The said suit was decreed exparte on 07.03.2007 against which the petitioner has not preferred any appeal. The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 292 of 2004 therefore binds the petitioner and it reached a finality. When the competent Civil Court has granted a declaratory decree against the petitioner, it is not open for him to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider his representation for grant of patta. Therefore, on the ground of suppression of material facts, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted.
13. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
