This writ petition is filed to call for the records of the proceedings in E.A.No. 1 of 2008 in E.P.No. 1 of 1996 in P.C.T.P.A.No. 4 of 1993 on the file of the Presiding Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate(North), Revenue Court, Puducherry and the consequential Notice dated 7.7.2008 issued to the petitioner in the above proceedings and quash the same.
2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property of land and building in Plot No.13 and 14. Snegam Nagar, Navarakulam, Lawspet, Puducherry. According to the petitioner, the property originally belonged to one Palanisamy and by subsequent sale deeds on various period, the property was sold to some other persons. Lastly, the property was conveyed to the petitioner by sale deed dated 20-1-1997. In the said land, the petitioner has constructed residential building and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. According to the petitioner, in the second week of April 2008, it is brought to their knowledge that the second respondent has obtained certain order before the first respondent/Presiding Officer, Sub Divisional Magistrate(North) Revenue Court, Puducherry under the provisions of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenanchy Protection Act, 9/1971. It is stated by the petitioner that the second respondent is claiming ownership of the land, which is the subject matter of the land comprised in Cadastre No. 934-2/2 corresponding to R.S.Nos. 82/3/A/1/T, 82/3/A/1/P bearing patta No.793 of Karuvadikuppam Revenue Village, Oulgaret Commune of an extent of 1 Khani, 50 Kuzhies, 6 Veesams (equivalent to 2 acres).
3. According to the writ petitioner, the second respondent is neither a owner of the property nor Tmt. Yashothai Ammal was the cultivating tenant of the property. The petitioner states that the proceedings of the first respondent is an exparte order dated 16.7.1996 and a fraud has been played by the second respondent to claim the property illegally. According to the petitioner, the second respondent filed E.P.No. 1 of 1996 in P.C.T.P.A.No. 4 of 1993 on the file of the first respondent and obtained an order of delivery of possession by an order dated 20.11.1996 suppressing facts with malafide motive to grab the property. The petitioner received notice in E.A.No. 1 of 2008 in E.P.No. 1 of 1996 in PCTPA No. 4 of 1993 issued by the first respondent treating the petitioner as an obstructor and for a direction to remove the obstruction. In the said petition, the writ petitioner is shown at Sl.No.19. In response to the said order and the notice for appearance, counter has been filed by the writ petitioner before the first respondent inter-alia contending that the entire proceedings is without jurisdiction contrary to law and based on a fraud played by the second respondent. The right, title and interest claimed by the second respondent is contrary to law and a fraud has been played. However, without participating in the said proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings and the notice issued by the first respondent on merits.
4. The second respondent appeared as party-in-person, counter has been filed and documents have been submitted. He opposed the prayer in the writ petition stating that the writ petitioner having submitted the objections in detail as in the case of other objectors, should have co-operated in concluding the proceedings instead of rushing to this Court for relief. He prayed that the petitioner should be directed to proceed with adjudication before the first respondent.
5. On going through the nature of the allegations contained in the writ petition as well as counter filed by the second respondent, it is clear that several factors as stated by the writ petitioner is disputed by the second respondent. Several documents have to be considered before the rights of the rival parties are decided by the authorities concerned. In any event, in this case, the writ petitioner has come before this Court consequent to the notice issued by the first respondent wherein the petitioner is called upon to appear for the enquiry. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the rival claim, particularly, in matters relating to disputed questions of fact. However, the petitioner is at liberty to canvass his rights on all aspects including the jurisdiction of the authorities to decide the lis. No relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted at this point of time and the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to hear the parties and decide the matter in accordance with law on all the issues raised by the petitioner after affording reasonable opportunities to the petitioner and others. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is closed. No costs.
ra To
1. The Presiding Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate(North), Revenue Court, Puducherry