Madras High Court
Rajavel vs The District Revenue Officer on 9 August, 2021
WP.No.33833 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.No.33833 of 2015 and
MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
Rajavel ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Villupuram Revenue District,
Villupuram
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Villupuram Revenue Division,
Villupuram District
3.The Tahsildar,
Villupuram Taluk,
Villupuram District
4.Thilagavathy ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of
the impugned order passed by the first respondent herein in
Na.Ka.A2/D.R.R.P 07/2010 dated 26.03.2013 and order passed in appeal
dated 12.01.2010 in A3/3213/09 passed by the second respondent in
confirming the order of third respondent herein passed in RDR.670/09 dated
07.04.2009 in respect of survey No.632/19, 20, 21 and 22, situated at
Arpisampalayam Village, Villupuram Taluk & District and quash the same,
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
consequently directing the respondents to restore the original patta in the
name of petitioner in survey No.632/19, 20, 21 and 22, Arpisampalayam
Villupuram, Villupuram Taluk & District.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
for Mr.K.Balu
For Respondents
For R1 to 3: Mr.Richardson Wilson
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified
mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first
respondent herein in Na.Ka.A2/D.R.R.P 07/2010 dated 26.03.2013 and
order passed in appeal dated 12.01.2010 in A3/3213/09 passed by the
second respondent in confirming the order of third respondent herein passed
in RDR.670/09 dated 07.04.2009 in respect of survey No.632/19, 20, 21 and
22, situated at Arpisampalayam Village, Villupuram Taluk & District and
quash the same, consequently directing the respondents to restore the
original patta in the name of petitioner in survey No.632/19, 20, 21 and 22,
Arpisampalayam Villupuram, Villupuram Taluk & District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
2. The case of the petitioner is that the property comprised in
survey No.260/1A to an extent of 3.12.0 hectares is situated at
Arpisampalayam, Villupuram Taluk & District. Thereafter, it was partitioned
within the family members and the same was registered vide document
No.2503 of 2007 dated 17.10.2008 on the file of the Sub Registrar,
Valavanur, Villupuram District. It was originally owned by his father and
sub-divided as survey No.362/19, 20, 21 and 22. After demise of his father,
the patta was changed in his name through the proceedings of the third
respondent dated 28.09.2007. Thereafter, sub-division was made as 260/1A.
While being so, on 01.03.2009, the fourth respondent made application
before the third respondent for cancellation of the said patta. The third
respondent cancelled the patta by order dated 07.04.2009 and aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the second respondent and the
same was rejected by order dated 12.01.2010 and the same was also
confirmed by the first respondent by order dated 26.03.2013. Aggrieved by
the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
third respondent has no power to cancel the patta, that too issued by the
third respondent. The third respondent can modify the patta, that too either
by reason of the death of any person or by reason of transfer of interest in
the land or by reason of any subsequent change in the circumstances.
Therefore, Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act does not empower the
Tahsildar to cancel the patta already granted as the power of the Tahsildar to
modify the entries in the patta passbook is limited as stated supra. He further
submitted that if at all any grievance over the patta in respect of title over
the property, the revenue officials i.e. the first and second respondents have
no power to decide the title in question of the subject property. The civil
court only is the competent court to decide the issue with respect of the title
over the property. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment
in the case of Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., rep. by Director V.Ravi
Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram and others reported in (2011) 5
CTC 94.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the third respondent has no power to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
cancel the patta issued by the same Office. As provided under Section 10 of
the Patta Passbook Act, the third respondent can modify the issuance of
patta, that too to modify the entries in the patta passook is limited only in
case of death of the person who was holding the patta passbook or by reason
of the transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any other subsequent
change in the circumstances. He further submitted that the fourth respondent
can very well approach the civil court if there is any title dispute over the
property as per the proviso to Section 14 of the Patta Passbook Act. He
further submitted that the petitioner failed to produce any document to show
that he has title over the property. However, there is proviso to Section 14 of
Patta Passbook Act to decide the title only by the civil court.
5. Heard, Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Mr.Richardson Wilson, Government Advocate appearing for
the respondents 1 to 3. Though notice was sent to the fourth respondent, the
same was returned.
6. The petitioner is challenging the orders passed by the
respondents 1 to 3 herein thereby cancelled the patta issued in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
petitioner in respect of the property comprised in survey No.632/19, 20, 21
and 22 situated at Arpisampalayam, Villupuram. The subject property was
originally owned by the petitioner's grandfather. After his demise, his two
sons i.e. Parasuraman and Natesan inherited and divided into two shares.
From the date of partition, they were in possession and enjoyment of their
respective shares. The petitioner is none other than the son of the said
Parasuraman and after demise of the said Parasuraman, the petitioner
inherited the property and patta has been changed in his name through the
proceedings of the third respondent herein dated 28.09.2007 in
Ref.No.Ni.mu.R.D.R.906/07 and sub-division was made as 260/1A. While
being so, the fourth respondent who is none other the wife of Natesan,
claimed the subject property. Therefore, she filed petition to cancel the patta
issued in favour of the petitioner. On receipt of the petition, the third
respondent cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner and the
same was confirmed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Therefore, the
points for consideration in this writ petition are as follows:
1. Whether the third respondent has got jurisdiction to
cancel the patta granted in favour of the petitioner?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
2. Whether the respondents 1 and 2 has got
jurisdiction to decide the title over the subject
property?
7. The power is conferred on the revenue authorities under the
Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 with regards to the issuance of patta,
appeal and revision under Sections 10, 12 and 13 of the Patta Passbook Act.
It is relevant to extract the provision of Section 10 of Patta Passbook Act as
follows:
10. Modification of entries in the patta pass book:
(1) Where any person claims that any modification
is required in respect of any entry in the patta pass book
already issued under section 3 either by reason of the death
of any person or by the reason of the transfer of the land or
by reason of any other subsequent change in circumstances,
he shall make an application to the Tahsildar for the
modification of the relevant entries in the patta pass book.
(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall
contain such particulars, as may be prescribed, and shall be
accompanied by the documents, if any, relied on by the
applicant as evidence in support of his claim.
(3) (a) Before passing an order on an application
under sub-section (1), the Tahsildar shall follow such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
procedure as may be prescribed and shall also give a
reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make
their representations either orally or in writing. If the
Tahsildar decides that any modification should be made in
respect of entries in the patta passbook, he shall pass an
order accordingly and shall make such consequential
changes in the patta pass book, as appear to him to be
necessary, for giving effect to his order.
(b) If the Tahsildar decides that there is no case
for effecting any modification of the entries in the patta pass
book, he shall reject the application.
(c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall
contain the reasons for such order and shall be
communicated to the parties concerned in such manner as
may be prescribed.
8. Thus, the provision does not empower the Tahsildar to cancel
the patta already granted. The third respondent has power to modify the
entries made in the patta passbook, that too for limited purpose i.e. in case
of death of the person who was holding the patta passbook or by reason of
the transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any other subsequent
change in the circumstances. Therefore, the third respondent has no power
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
to entertain the petition from the fourth respondent for cancellation of patta
already issued in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order passed by
the third respondent, the petitioner preferred appeal as contemplated under
Section 12 before the second respondent. Section 12 contemplates that any
person aggrieved by an order made by the Tahsildar under this Act may,
within such period as may be prescribed, appeal to such authority as may be
prescribed. In order to invoke the provisions of appeal, there must be an
order passed by the Tahsildar either under section 3 or under section 5 or
under section 10 of the Act and any person aggrieved by such order made by
the Tahsildar could prefer appeal within a period of thirty days from the
receipt of the order
9. In the case on hand, the third respondent passed order under
Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act. However, the fourth respondent raised
specific issue with regards to the title of the subject property. Revenue
Officers in a patta proceeding may express their views on the question of
title, but such expression of opinion or decision is not conclusive and it is
only intended to support their decision for granting patta. Ultimately, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
the civil court which has to adjudicate the question as to whether the person
claiming patta is the title holder of the land. Even if the revenue authorities
decide the question of title, that will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of
the civil court, which has to decide the question without reference to the
decision of the revenue authorities. In this regard, the learned counsel for
the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Vishwas Footwear
Company Ltd., rep. by Director V.Ravi Vs. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram and others reported in (2011) 5 CTC 94, wherein it is held
as follows:
14. Keeping the above in mind, the issue is to be
considered. The writ appeal raises two important questions.
Firstly, whether the Revenue Divisional Officer would be
competent to go into the disputed question of title while
considering the application for cancellation of patta. In
fact, the law on this is not res integra. As early as in the
year 1995, a Division Bench of this Court in Kuppuswami
Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai
and others, 1995 (1) MLJ 426 has observed as follows:
3. No provision is brought to our notice in the
Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue taking away the
jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate upon the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
question of title relating to immovable property. Revenue
Officers in a patta proceeding may express their views on
the question of title, but such expression of opinion or
decision is not conclusive and it is only intended to support
their decision for granting patta. Ultimately, it is the civil
court which has to adjudicate the question as to whether the
person claiming patta is the title holder of the land. Even if
the revenue authorities decide the question of title, that will
not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the civil court,
which has to decide the question without reference to the
decision of the revenue authorities.
4. Now the question for consideration is, having regard to
the fact that the District Revenue Officer has expressed his
opinion on the question of title, whether the order under
question should be interfered with. It may be pointed out
here that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the question of title regarding immovable property cannot
properly be gone into, because a mass of evidence may be
required for adjudicating the question of title. Even if we
are to interfere with the order under appeal, it is the other
party, who has to go to a civil court and establish title. As
far as the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is concerned, it does not matter to it whether A
party goes to civil court or B party. Therefore, we are of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
view that the question of title has to be decided by the civil
court without reference to the order under question. Hence,
we decline to interfere with the order challenged in the writ
petition. However, we make it clear that in the event a suit
for declaration of title and for appropriate consequential
relief is filed, the civil court shall decide such a suit,
without reference to the findings recorded by respondents 1
and 2 in the impugned orders, but only on the basis of the
pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them
before it. We also make it clear that any opinion expressed
by the learned single Judge, contrary to what we have
stated above, shall also stand modified accordingly. With
these observations, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, C.M.P.No.15872 of 1994 filed along with the
appeal is also dismissed.
15. Following the said judgment, one of us (DMJ)
in Chockkappans case has held that the Revenue Divisional
Officer has no jurisdiction to go into the disputed questions
of title at the time when an application for cancellation of
patta is being considered. As far as this law is concerned,
there cannot be a second opinion as to the limited
jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer only to find
out prima facie as to the title and when the title is in dispute
and there are rival claimants, he should refer the parties to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
civil Court for adjudication and depending upon the decree
that may be passed by the civil Court, relevant entries in the
patta could be effected by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
17. The question as to whether the revenue
authorities be it the Tahsildar exercising power under
section 3 or under section 5 or under section 10 or the
Revenue Divisional Officer exercising power under section
12, can consider only a prima facie case as to the
entitlement of a person or persons for issuance of patta. In
the event such officers encounter a dispute which could be
resolved only by a competent civil Court, they would not
have jurisdiction to enter into such civil dispute for
adjudication. To this extent, the judgments in Kuppuswami
Nainar's case followed in Chockkappan'c case may be
relied upon. The learned Judge in the order under appeal
has also relied upon those judgments and we are in
agreement with the same.
21. In the light of the judgments in Kuppuswami
Nainars case and Chockkappans case, the person who has
applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation
of patta should be directed to approach the civil Court to
establish the title and for seeking the grant of patta after
cancelling the patta granted in favour of the appellant
company. On this ground, the appellant is entitled to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
succeed. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge
is set aside. The order impugned in the writ petition is set
aside and the patta granted in favour of the appellant
company is restored. However, we make it clear that this
order shall not stand in the way of the said Alamelu Ammal
to approach the civil Court to establish the title and to
consequently seek for cancellation of patta granted in
favour of the appellant company and for further direction
for grant of patta in favour of the said Alamelu Ammal.
With these observations and directions, the writ appeal is
allowed. No costs.
10. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that the
revenue officials can consider only a prima facie case as to the entitlement
of a person or persons for issuance of patta. In the event such officers
encounter a dispute which could be resolved only by a competent civil
Court. If any person makes an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer
for cancellation of that patta and in the event both the individuals claim title
over the property, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot adjudicate such
disputed questions and accepting the case of the other person, he cannot
cancel the patta. The right course to be adopted by the Revenue Divisional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
Officer in such case is only to refer the applicant who has come before him
seeking for cancellation of patta to civil Court, especially when his claim is
disputed by the individual who is holding the patta granted by the
competent authority.
11. In the case on hand, based on the documents produced by the
petitioner, he was granted patta by the third respondent. Thereafter, the
fourth respondent also claimed title over the property and sought for
cancellation of patta issued in favour of the petitioner herein. As stated
supra, the third respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the cancellation
of patta issued in favour of the petitioner. He can modify the patta issued in
favour of the petitioner as stated supra under Sections 3 and 5 of the Patta
Passbook Act. Therefore, the above judgment is squarely applicable to the
case on hand.
12. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the
respondents 1 to 3 are unsustainable as the same were passed without
jurisdiction. Accordingly, all the impugned orders dated 07.04.2009,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
12.01.2010 and 26.03.2013 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed.
Consequently, the patta in survey No.632/19, 20, 21 and 22,
Arpisampalayam Village, Villupuram Taluk & District granted in favour of
the petitioner is restored. However, the fourth respondent is at liberty to
approach the civil court to establish the title in respect of the subject
property and subject to the result of the civil court decree, she can seek for
cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioner in the manner known
to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No
order as to costs.
09.08.2021
lok
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.33833 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Villupuram Revenue District,
Villupuram
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Villupuram Revenue Division,
Villupuram District
3.The Tahsildar,
Villupuram Taluk,
Villupuram District
WP.No.33833 of 2015
09.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
