1. Defendant in O.S No. 281 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Poonamallee is the Revision Petitioner.
2. The Respondents filed the above Suit for recovery of possession and for damages and in that Suit, the Petitioner herein filed I.A No. 388 of 2012 under Order 12, Rule 8, read with Sections 75 & 76 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling the entire records in S. No. 151/1B Ramapuram Village Maduravoyal Firka, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District the Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk and the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Kundrathur Division, Adambakkam, Chennai and filed I.A No. 389 of 2012 for issuing summons to the District Collector, Thiruvallur, the Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Kundrathur Division, Urban Land Ceiling for giving evidence with the entire documents available with them in connection with S. No. 151/1B Ramapuram Village Maduravoyal Firka and both the Applications were dismissed and aggrieved by the same, these two Revisions are filed.
3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the Respondents/Plaintiffs filed the Suit for recovery of possession on the basis that they were the owners of the suit property and admittedly, the suit property was declared as surplus land under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and the land declared as surplus by the Government was sub-divided as S. No. 151/1A, 151/1B & 151/1C & S. No. 151/1A was a public passage and the land retained by the Plaintiffs was sub divided and given Survey No. 151/1C and the land declared as surplus land by the Government was given S. No. 151.B and the compensation was paid and therefore, from the date the land was declared as surplus by the Government under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Plaintiffs ceased to be owners of the property and therefore, they were not entitled to file the Suit for recovery of possession. He further submitted that as per G.O.Ms No. 657, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu dated 19.4.1990, 4050 sqmt in S. No. 151/1B of Ramapuram Village was allotted to Telace Plants and Equipments Private Limited on collection of one and half times of market value and the allottee did not pay the amount as per the condition of allotment and therefore, the land was retained by the Government and the Government has also passed Orders on 5.8.1983 for taking the excess vacant land from the First Plaintiff and therefore, after taking over of the land by the Government by invoking the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Plaintiffs cannot claim title to the suit property. He further submitted that W.P No. 28993 of 2007 was filed by the First Plaintiff for declaration that the First Plaintiff was entitled to retain the land measuring 4131.598 sqmt comprised in S. No. 151/1 part Ramapuram Village as per Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999 and though that Writ Petition was allowed, in Writ Appeal No. 554 of 2011, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the Writ Appeal was allowed and therefore, the land vested with the Government and the Respondents/Plaintiffs cannot claim any title and therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that to prove and substantiate the case of the Revision Petitioner that the Plaintiffs ceased to be the owners of the property, after the land was declared as surplus land under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Government became the owner of the property and the land was also allotted to Telace Plants and Equipments Private Limited by G.O.Ms No. 657, the entire records relating to S. No. 151/1B Ramapuram Village maintained by the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk and Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Kundrathur Division Adambakkam, Chennai are to be summoned and for that purpose, I.A No. 388 of 2012 was filed and to speak about those records, those officials were sought to be summoned in I.A No. 389 of 2012 and without properly appreciating the same, the Court below dismissed the Application holding that the Revision Petitioner could have got certified copy of those documents and as per the direction of this Court, the Suit has to be finalised within the time frame and therefore, the orders of the Court below are liable to be dismissed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. P. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the Respondents/Plaintiffs submitted that it is a clear case of abuse of process of Court and having realised that the Petitioner has no case, the Petitioner has filed those Applications only to drag on the proceedings and there is no merit in the Revisions filed by the Petitioner. He further submitted that admittedly, the Revision Petitioner was a Tenant under the Plaintiffs and therefore, having taken the property on lease from the Plaintiffs, it was not open to the Revision Petitioner to set up title with another person and the present attempt by the Revision Petitioner was only to set up title with the Government which was not permissible in law and therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the Petitions. He further submitted that against the order passed in W.A No. 554 of 2011, SLP (Civil) No. 3946 of 2012 was filed and the same is pending and the order passed in W.A No. 554 of 2011 will not also help the Revision Petitioner and as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling) Regulations Act, 1999, when possession was not taken pursuant to the declaration of land as surplus on the date of coming into force of Repealing Act, 90/1999, the owner continued to be the owner of the property and the earlier declaration declaring the land as surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act will not have any effect and in this case, admittedly possession was not taken by the Government pursuant to the declaration of the land as surplus and that was also found in the order passed in W.P No. 28993 of 2007 and the Writ Appeal was allowed holding that in view of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Repealing Act 90/1999 and the fact that possession of the vacant land has not been taken over by the State Government, all proceedings including the possession must be held to have been abated and any order passed subsequent to 16.6.1999 is without jurisdiction. He, therefore, submitted that having regard to the fact that possession was not taken, the Respondents continued to be owners of the property and therefore, there was no need to summon those documents in order to examine the officials. He further submitted that the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and the various G.Os relied upon by the Petitioner are Public records and those documents can be obtained and produced by the Petitioner and the documents will speak for itself and there is no need for summoning those documents or to examine the officials and as per Rules 75 & 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice, when certified copies of the documents can be obtained, there is no need for summoning those documents. He further submitted that the Applications were taken after the evidence of DW1 was over and the plea regarding the ownership vested with the Government was taken in the original Written Statement filed by the Petitioner and the same was repeated in the additional Written Statement and therefore, when the Petitioner was able to give details of the various orders, passed by the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, he could have produced those documents by giving certified copies and for that purpose, the documents need not be summoned and hence, the Court below has rightly dismissed the Application.
5. It is not in dispute that the property in S. No. 151 Ramapuram Village, Ambattur Taluk, belongs to the First Plaintiff and the Revision Petitioner became a tenant under the Plaintiffs. It is the case of the Revision Petitioner that the land in question was declared as surplus under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1979 by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the land declared as surplus was sub-divided as S. No. 151/1B and the land retained by the First Plaintiff was sub-divided as S. No. 151/1C and the remaining extent of 25 cents was sub-divided as S. No. 151/1A as a public passage. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that 3/88 Mount Poonamallee Road, Ramapuram is coming in S. No. 151/1B and it is declared as surplus by the Government. Therefore, the fact of Sub-Division of S. No. 151 of Ramapuram Village into 151/1A, 151/1B & 151/1C and the issuance of Patta could have been proved by producing the Revenue records by giving certificate copies. Further, the Petitioner has given detailed information regarding the various G.Os passed and the allotment of land to Telace Plants and Equipments Private Limited and the letter of the Industrial Commissioner and Industries Director Commissioner and Government of Tamil Nadu dated 23.7.2009 to the Director, Urban Land Ceiling, Urban Land Tax Act Department about the NOC given to the Pollution Control Board in the Petition and those documents could have been produced by the Petitioner to prove their case. Further, the Petitioner has filed Proof Affidavit, wherein they have filed six documents and Document Nos. 2 to 4 are Letters from the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Kundrathur Zone, Chennai, letter from Industrial Commissioner to Industrial Commercial Director, Letter from Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax to Secretary to Government and when the Petitioner was able to produce such documents alongwith Proof Affidavit, they could have produced the other documents which are Public records by obtaining certified copies of those documents. Considering all these aspects, the Court below has rightly held that as per Rule 75(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice, summons shall not be issued unless the production of the original is necessary or certified copy would not be granted.
6. Further, under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice, a party may apply to the Court, where the Suit is pending for the issuance of certificate to enable him to obtain certified copy of Public document for being filed into Court and therefore, when the Petitioner can get the certified copy from the Government, there is no need to send for those documents. Similarly, the witnesses summoned by the Petitioner are not necessary to prove the contents of the document as the documents will speak itself and the officials cannot have any personal knowledge and they will have to speak only from the documents. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Petitions filed by the Petitioner at the fag end of the trial is a clear abuse of process of Court and that has been filed only to drag on the proceedings and the Petitioner could have filed those documents by getting certified copies from the officials and hence, the Court below has rightly dismissed the Applications and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Court below.
In the result, the Revisions are dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
Comments