The Madras High Court Bench here has directed a lawyer to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 to a woman for indulging in “unethical practices and adopting dubious methods” to dispossess the latter from rightful ownership of her property.
Justice K. Chandru imposed the cost while dismissing a writ petition filed by the lawyer A. Thirumalai Saminathan seeking a direction to the Tiruchi Collector to consider a representation made by him for cancelling the patta granted in favour of the woman. The judge pointed out that the petitioner was interested in evicting the woman, Thulasimani, who was residing in her property for more than 30 years, in order to get a second approach road for the residential plots that he had sold to many other individuals.
However, without disclosing the private interest he had in the issue, the lawyer had filed a public interest litigation petition in 2010 and obtained an order from a Division Bench for an enquiry into the issue by the Tiruchi Revenue Divisional Officer.
Thereafter, the RDO conducted an enquiry under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and found that the petitioner himself had sold residential plots by partitioning lands that were originally classified as ‘Natham Poromboke’ but later allowed to be used for housing.
The RDO also held that there was no need to order eviction of Thulasimani from her property as she was living there for over 30 years and was in possession of a valid housing patta. It was further stated that there was an alternative pathway to the residential plots sold by the petitioner.
After recording the happenings, the judge said that the lawyer did not leave the matter at that. He filed the present writ petition seeking cancellation of patta and also a criminal revision case challenging the RDO’s order. The revision case was still pending adjudication.
Wondering how the RDO’s order was illegal or invalid, the judge said: “What was originally projected as public interest litigation had now become a private interest of the petitioner…The attitude of the petitioner especially when he is a practising lawyer cannot be appreciated by this court.”
