Madras High Court
P.Ramesh vs The Tahsildar on 4 January, 2021
W.P.No. 25105 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P. No. 25105 of 2016
and W.M.P. Nos.21497 & 22055 of 2016
P.Ramesh ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Tahsildar,
Omalur Taluk,
Salem District.
2.The Sub-Collector,
Mettur, Salem District.
3.The Collector,
Salem District.
4.Palanisamy. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus directing directing the 2nd respondent to drop all further
proceedings in respect of cancellation of patta granted in favour of the
petitioner in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No. 2824/2015/ P which is posted for
enquiry on 20/07/2016 pertaining to the property being the land together with
the superstructure thereon constituting house, comprised in 1.Survey No.
150/9C, land of an extent of hectare 0.02.5, acre 0.06 cents 2.Survey No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No. 25105 of 2016
150/10A, land of an extent of hectare 0.01.5, acre 0.03 cents 3.Survey No.
150/10B, land of an extent of hectare 0.11.0, acre 0.27 cents 4.Survey No.
150/11A, land of an extent of hectare 0.02.0, acre 0.05 cents 5.Survey No.
150/11C, land of an extent of hectare 0.16.0, acre 0.40, the entirely of the lands
of an extent of hectare 0.33.0, acre bearing Patta No.573, situated in
Desavilakku (North) Village Hamlet, Tharamangalam Village, Thuttampatty
Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District and consequently refrain the second
respondent from passing any such order in respect of the aforesaid property.
For Petitioner : Mr. A.Palaniappan
For Respondents 1-3 : Mr. A.Madhumathi
Special Government Pleader
4 : No appearance
O RD E R
This petition is filed with a prayer to direct the second respondent to drop
all further proceedings in respect of cancellation of patta granted in favour of
the petitioner in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No. 2824/2015/ P which is posted
for enquiry on 20/07/2016 pertaining to the property being the land together
with the superstructure thereon constituting house, comprised in 1.Survey No.
150/9C, land of an extent of hectare 0.02.5, acre 0.06 cents 2.Survey No.
150/10A, land of an extent of hectare 0.01.5, acre 0.03 cents 3.Survey No.
150/10B, land of an extent of hectare 0.11.0, acre 0.27 cents 4.Survey No.
150/11A, land of an extent of hectare 0.02.0, acre 0.05 cents 5.Survey No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No. 25105 of 2016
150/11C, land of an extent of hectare 0.16.0, acre 0.40, in all the lands of an
extent of hectare 0.33.0, bearing Patta No.573, situated in Desavilakku (North)
Village Hamlet, Tharamangalam Village, Thuttampatty Post, Omalur Taluk,
Salem District and consequently refrain the second respondent from passing
any such order in respect of the aforesaid property.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition it is stated by the
petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the properties comprised in five
different sub divisions of the same survey number and other properties
mentioned in the prayer. It is his further case that the property was originally
belonged to one Chinnathai Ammal wife of Chinnathanur Gounder. It is further
stated that the Chinnathai Ammal died intestate leaving behind one Sithan and
three others. It is also stated that the legal heirs of Chinnathai Ammal effected
an oral partition in respect of the properties and that the properties which is the
subject matter of the Writ Petition were allotted to the father of the petitioner
by name Perumal. It is admitted that the fourth respondent is the son of one
Sithan who is also one of the legal heir of Chinnathai Ammal. The petitioner
claimed titled over the property on the basis of subsequent partition deed dated
05.01.2011, which is among the Legal heirs of Perumal namely the father of the
petitioner. It is admitted before this Court that the daughter of Chinnathai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No. 25105 of 2016
Ammal filed a suit in O.S. No.233 of 2013, on the file of Sub Court, Mettur,
seeking partition on the ground that the oral partition pleaded by the petitioner
is not valid and binding on her. It is the specific case of the petitioner that based
on the partition deed, patta for the property was changed in the name of the
petitioner and that the partition of the year 2011 was also acted upon by
execution of a settlement deed.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent filed an
appeal before the second respondent challenging transfer of patta in favour of
the petitioner on the ground that the patta had been obtained in the name of the
petitioner suppressing the material facts and the existence of other legal heirs of
Chinnathai Ammal. It is stated that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to
cancel the patta once granted in favour of the petitioner. It is also stated that
during the pendency of the civil suit, the second respondent ought not to have
entertained the petition filed by the fourth respondent challenging the order of
Tahsildar granting patta in favour of the petitioner. It is admitted before this
Court that the second respondent has conducted an enquiry based on the
representation of the fourth respondent regarding cancellation of patta granted
in favour of the petitioner. It is further admitted that the final order was also
passed on 31.10.2016, by the second respondent canceling the order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No. 25105 of 2016
Tahsildar transferring the patta in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated in
the said order that the name of the petitioner should be removed and the patta
should be restored to its original position. By virtue of the order passed by the
second respondent, the patta was restored in the name of Chinnathai Ammal,
the original owner of the property.
4. It is seen that the dispute is among two groups representing two
different legal heirs of the original owner of the property. It is stated that the
civil dispute is also pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner circulated
the judgment of this Court rendered by a Division Bench to the effect that the
Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to deal with mutation of records.
In the present case, the petitioner obtained patta in his name on the basis of self
serving document namely a partition deed which was subsequent to a oral
partition alleged by the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to
agree with the contention that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no
jurisdiction to test the validity of the order passed by the Tahsildar. In the
factual scenario where the oral partition is not yet confirmed or admitted by
other legal heirs of Chinnathai Ammal, the dispute has to be finally settled by
the Civil Court. In such circumstances, the order transferring patta in favour of
the petitioner without hearing the other legal heirs of Chinnathai Ammal is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No. 25105 of 2016
invalid and hence the second respondent, as an Appellate Authority, has passed
appropriate orders. After the second respondent passed an order on 31.10.2016,
the petitioner filed a petition in W.P. No.22055 of 2016 to amend the prayer.
By amendment, the petitioner now seeks to quash the order of second
respondent dated 31.10.2016 and the notice pursuant to which the order was
passed by the second respondent.
5. Having regard to the nature of dispute and the representation of the
fourth respondent as well as the case pleaded by the petitioner in the Writ
Petition, this Court is of the view that the order of Tahsildar transferring patta
in favour of the petitioner is an order passed under Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book
Act. Every order passed by Tahsildar under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book
Act is appealable and the second respondent is the Appellate Authority to test
the validity of the order of Tahsildar passed under Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book
Act. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the second
respondent has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter has no substance and
merits.
6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that another suit in O.S. No.117 of 2014 on the file of District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No. 25105 of 2016
Munsif Court, Omalur, was filed by the petitioner's wife by name
Dhanalakshmi and that the said suit is based on the oral partition and
subsequent partition in the year 2011 and the settlement deed executed in her
favour. Since there are two suits pending and the Civil Court is seized of the
matter, it may not be appropriate for this Court or the Revenue Officials to
decide the dispute in the proceedings in relation to transfer of patta. Hence, this
Court is of the view that the petitioner can approach the Revenue Officials after
getting a decision in his favour before the Civil Court regarding title.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, liberty is granted to the
petitioner or his wife to workout their remedy in the pending suits. Since
Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, clearly protects the right of
the petitioner, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the Revenue
Officials in case the petitioner or the petitioner's wife succeed before the Civil
Court establishing their title.
04.01.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
bkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No. 25105 of 2016
S.S.SUNDAR. J.,
bkn
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4.The Conservator of Forest,
Vellore Circle,
Rangapuram,
Sathuvachari Post,
Vellore – 9.
5.The District Forest Officer,
Thiruvannamalai North Division,
C.C.Road, Bagunarpettai,
Sengunam Post, Polur,
Thiruvannamalai District.
W.P. No. 25105 of 2016
04.01.2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
