Madras High Court
M. Murugan vs The District Revenue Officer on 18 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.8849 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.9388 of 2021
M. Murugan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Kallakurichi,
Kallakurichi District.
2.The Sub Collector,
Office of the Sub Collector,
Kallakurichi,
Kallakurichi District.
3. Lakshmi
4. Ilayaperumal
5. R. Govindan .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the Order of the 2 nd respondent dated 21.12.2020
in Mu.Mu.A4/1017/2020 and quash the same and consequently direct
the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal of the petitioner dated
14.01.2020 in accordance with law irrespective of the pendency of the
suit in O.S.No.732 of 2020, filed by the respondents 3 and 4 within a
stipulated period.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
For Petitioner .. Mr. K. Selvaraj
For R1 and R2 .. Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate
For R3 and R4 .. Mr. S.N. Subramani
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed in the nature of certiorarified
mandamus seeking interference of the order of the second
respondent/Sub Collector, Kallakurichi dated 21.12.2020 in
Mu.Mu.A4/1017/2020 and directing the respondent to decide the
Appeal of the petitioner dated 14.1.2020.
2. The petitioner had originally instituted a suit in O.S.No.212 of
2014 against his vendors on the file of the District Munsif,
Kallakurichi. The said suit was for declaration of title and recovery of
possession. The suit was decreed. Thereafter, the petitioner also had
the benefit of grant of patta.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said patta had
been seriously questioned by respondents 3 to 5. An order was
passed by the Tahsildar cancelling the patta of the petitioner.
Thereafter, an Appeal was filed on 14.1.2020 before the second
respondent/Sub Collector, Kallakurichi.
4. It is complained by Mr.K.Selvaraj learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the said official had conducted hearing on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
22.9.2020 again on 22.10.2020 and also on 8.12.2020 and had
reserved the matters on 8.12.2020 and pending such enquiry,
respondents 3 and 4 had instituted a suit in O.S.No.732 of 2020 before
the Principal Sub Court, Kallakurichi in which they had sought the relief
of declaration of title and the petitioner herein also figured as first
defendant in the said suit. Therefore, an order was passed by the
second respondent directing the parties to settle the issues before
the civil court. That order is now questioned.
5. It is submitted by Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the
petitioner that institution of the suit in O.S.No732 of 2020 itself was
mala fide and that the said suit had been instituted with the sole
purpose of interfering with the proceedings of the second respondent
herein. It has, therefore, been contended that the second respondent
should be directed to proceed with the enquiry and pass orders with
the submissions already made.
6. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.S.N.Subramani appearing for
respondents 3 and 4 contended that the husband of the third
respondent Sengamalai Konar had purchased the property and the
decree which the petitioner relies viz., decree in O.S.No.212 of 2014
had been obtained without impleading the said Sengamala Konar or his
legal representatives and it is claimed that they are in possession of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the property in question. It is also contended by the learned counsel
that since a suit has already been filed, the issue of title will have to be
decided only by a Civil Court and the revenue authorities cannot decide
the title with respect to the property in question.
7. Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, learned Government Advocate appearing
for respondents 1 and 2 also pointed out that the land and the order in
question relates to UDR patta and therefore, the proceedings will have
to be initiated only before the District Revenue Officer and the
proceedings before the Sub Collector will have no legality. It is further
pointed out by him that once the suit has been lawfully instituted, it is
only appropriate that the parties advert their attention to the
proceedings before the competent forum primarily on declaration of
title.
8. The issue whether the revenue officials can go deeply into the
title of the party had been examined and re-examined in various
judgments of this court. I would rely on the decision of a Division
Bench in Vishwas Footwear Company Limited v. The District
Collector and others 2011 (5) CTC 94, wherein the Division Bench
had relied on an earlier judgment of a learned Single Judge (Justice
D.Murugesan) in Chokkappan and two others v. The State of
Tamil Nadu rep. by the Special Commissioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai and two others,
2004 (1) CTC 136 and it had been very categorically held therein
that the revenue officials cannot examine the title of property.
Examination of title would not only include examination of pleadings
but also examination of oral and documentary evidence which
evidence will have to be tested during cross-examination. This power
has been given only to the civil court and the revenue officials cannot
go into the title of the property. Therefore, it has been very clearly
held that it would only be advisable that the revenue officials do not
examine the title of any property and relegate the parties to the
proper forum viz., competent court of civil jurisdiction.
9. In view of the said pronouncement and the dictum laid down,
I would rather direct the parties to participate in O.S.No.732 of 2020.
10. My attention has been drawn to the order of a learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.7844 of 2021 dated 26.3.2021 (V.P.Chinnasamy v.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur District and another)
That was a writ filed seeking a writ of prohibition prohibiting the first
respondent from proceeding further with the enquiry on the ground
that a suit had been filed and that there has been dispute of title and
in that matter, the learned Single Judge had examined the jurisdiction
as provided under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
and had held that limited jurisdiction to examine the revenue records
still remains with the revenue authorities. Therefore, an order was
passed dismissing the said writ petition and refusing to pass orders as
sought in the writ petition. But, however, the Judgment in Vishwas
Footwear case referred to above is directly on the point and
applicable to the facts of the present case.
11. There is a title dispute with respect to the land and it is only
appropriate that the Civil Court decides the issues, renders a finding on
the issues raised.
12. Mr.K.Selvaraj learned counsel also pointed out that a
direction may be given to the Principal Sub Judge, Kallakurichi to
dispose of O.S.No.732 of 2020.
13. However, it is brought to the notice of the court that written
statement had not been filed in that suit. Therefore, it would not be
proper to give any indication as to the time frame within which the suit
must be disposed. I would only indicate that soon after the trial starts
and when the plaintiff enters into the box, the learned Judge may
conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of the
beginning of the trial.
14. With the said observation, which alone could be given, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
writ petition has to be necessarily dismissed and it is, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
18.08.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
ssk
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Kallakurichi,
Kallakurichi District.
2.The Sub Collector,
Office of the Sub Collector,
Kallakurichi,
Kallakurichi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J
ssk
W.P.No.8849 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.9388 of 2021
18.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
