Madras High Court
Rajeshwari Home Developers India ... vs The Additional District ... on 19 January, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.677 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.(MD) No.677 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.562 of 2021
Rajeshwari Home Developers India (P) Ltd.,
Annur,
through its Director Rajeswari,
D.No.73, Avinashi Road,
Annur Town, Avinashi Taluk,
Coimbatore District. .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Additional District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kovilpatti Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
3.N.Srinivasan .. Respondents
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.677 of 2021
PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating
to the order of 1st respondent in Na.Ka.D6-35037-2013 dated 23-11-2020
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthikeyan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.C.Ramesh
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The short facts of this case are that the 3rd respondent herein
had made an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kovilpatti for correction of entries in the UDR scheme for the reason that
the property to an extent of 1 acre of the land in S.No.280/6C and 281/3B
had been purchased by his father, but the patta had been wrongly entered
his father's name for a lesser extent of 54 cents.
2.The dispute as stated in the writ petition is that the extent of
the land, which conveys the ownership to the petitioner company, has
been varied at the instance of some third parties, which led the petitioner
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.677 of 2021
to file an original suit in O.S.No.271 of 2013 before the District Munsif
Court, Kovilpatti for permanent injunction against the 3rd respondent
from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
petitioner's property.
3.In the suit, it appears that the 3rd respondent has also made a
counter claim seeking declaration, mandatory injunction and for recovery
of possession and other consequential reliefs. The suit is still pending
before the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. While matter stood thus, the
District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin, has passed an order on 18.10.2013
adverse to the interest of the petitioner on erroneous appreciation of
facts/claims. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Revenue
Officer, dated 18.10.2013, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.
(MD) No.18538 of 2013 before this Court. However, this Court, by order
dated 05.09.2014, dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the same, Writ
Appeal in W.A.(MD) No.1300 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner before
this Court. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal and
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.677 of 2021
disposed of the same with certain observations on 07.01.2019 , by
remitting the matter to the 1st respondent for fresh hearing, after giving
sufficient opportunities to the parties.
4.In pursuance of the directions of the Division Bench of this
Court, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order in his
proceedings dated 23.11.2020 and the present writ petition has been filed
challenging the said proceedings.
5.Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram learned Senior Counsel for
Mr.V.Karthikeyan, appearing for the petitioner would point out certain
infirmities in the order passed by the 1st respondent, particularly, he
emphasised the fact that when the civil suit is pending between the
parties, it is not for the 1st respondent to take a decision in the matter.
Several grounds have been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition, assailing the impugned order.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.677 of 2021
6.This Court has perused the impugned order, dated
23.11.2020, the pleadings and the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner.
7.At the outset, this Court is unable to appreciate as to how the
writ petition is maintainable in the first place, in the face of clear
direction passed by this Court in W.A.(MD) No.1300 of 2014, on
07.01.2019. In fact, the District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin, has
incorporated the entire order in the impugned proceedings and the same
has to be extracted hereunder to appreciate as to how the writ petition is
not to be entertained:
“1. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.
(MD)No.18538 of 2013, dated 05.09.2014, is set aside. No costs.
2. The impugned order in writ petition in
Na.Ka.No.D2/35057/2013, dated 18.10.2013, passed by the first
respondent is quashed and the matter is remitted to the first
respondent for fresh hearing and the first respondent shall pass an
order after affording sufficient opportunity to both appellant as well
as the third respondent and consider their case on merits. It is open
to the appellant as well as the third respondent to raise all their
objections and submit their documents before the first respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.677 of 2021
The first respondent shall pass an order in accordance with law and
uninfluenced by any of the findings of this Court and the order
passed by the first respondent will subject to the outcome of O.S.No.
271 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kovilpatti.
The Civil Court can independently decided the question of title.
While rendering the judgment, we are not holding that
the revenue authorities are not competent to decide the question of
title based on admitted facts for effecting mutation of records. We
are only holding that the revenue authorities are not competent to
mutate the revenue records contrary to the provisions of Tamil Nadu
Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. Similarly, when a question is raised
about the fraudulent nature of transaction and if it is established by
documents, which are not disputed, the revenue authorities are
competent to correct the entries and restore the revenue records to
its original stage, if they are convinced that change or mutation of
revenue records was by playing fraud. Similarly correction of
entries wrongly made during UDR is also permissible. However, in
all instances, when correction of entries is called for, it shall be
done only after hearing the person interested.”
8.From the above, it could be seen that the petitioner was the
appellant before the Division Bench and he invited the order from the
Division Bench. Having invited the above order from the Division
Bench, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to approach this
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.677 of 2021
Court once again, questioning the authority, who passed the order only in
pursuance of the direction of the Division Bench.
9.When the authority has acted in pursuance of the direction of
this Court that too by a Division Bench of this Court, this Court does not
think that the present writ petition could be entertained, even for a
second by a single Judge. However, the learned Senior Counsel argued
the case, as if the writ petition is maintainable. This Court does not find
any merit for even ordering notice in the writ petition. When the Division
Bench of this Court has given a direction to the District Revenue Officer,
particularly at the instance of the petitioner herein such an act of the
authority pursuant thereto cannot be questioned before the single Judge
of this Court. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner's
attempt to get a relief from this Court in this writ petition is an abuse of
process of Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.677 of 2021
10.Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as not
maintainable. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
Index : Yes/No 19.01.2021
Internet : Yes/No
mm
To
1.The Additional District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kovilpatti Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.677 of 2021
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
mm
W.P.(MD)No.677 of 2021
19.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
