Madras High Court
D.H.Sarath Kumar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 14 July, 2021
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
and W.M.P.Nos.13517 & 13518 of 2017
and 9831 and 26256 of 2018
D.H.Sarath Kumar ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer
Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
2.The Tahsildar
Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
3.The District Revenue Officer
Office of the District Revenue Officer
Tiruvallur District.
4.Mr.Dhandapani
Revenue Divisional Officer
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer
Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
(R4 struck off from array of parties as
per order dated 14.07.2021 by RSKJ
in WP No.12694 of 2017)
5.Mr.Krishnamurthy
S/o Late Balasubramanian
No.22, Anugraha Apartments
Shakkaria Colony, Choolaimedu
Chennai – 600 094. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 26
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance
of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the order passed by the 1st respondent vide
his proceedings dated 24.04.2017 bearing Na.Ka.No.3415/2016/A1 and quash the same as
being arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and also being violative of the
principles of natural justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel
for M/s.G.Vivekanand
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson,
Government Counsel – for RR 1 to 3
Mr.K.Rajkumar - for R4
Mr.K.V.Sundararajan – for R5
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the
order passed by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings dated 24.04.2017 bearing
Na.Ka.No.3415/2016/A1 and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal, without
jurisdiction, violative of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion
into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and also being violative of the principles of natural justice.
2. There has been a dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent with
respect to the property situated at Methur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District in
Survey Nos.404, 405, 406, 407, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 417, 418, 419, 420, 422,
423, 434 and 435 totalling to 54 Acres and 21 Cents. The case of the petitioner in short is
that, the properties originally belonged to one Prabala Seshachalayya, who executed a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
Will in the year 1903 and the said Will got probated in the year 1904, where one
S.S.Krishnaswamy @ S.S.Krishnaswamy Iyer was appointed as an Executor, who
happened to be one of the son-in-law of the said Prabala Seshachalayya. The said
S.S.Krishnaswamy Iyer sold the properties in question by a Sale Deed dated 31.03.1920
to the vendors of the petitioner's father by a registered Sale Deed in Document No.1747
of 1920 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Madras-Chengalpattu.
3. From the said purchasers under the 1920 Sale Deed, the petitioner's father
D.Srihari Rao purchased the property by a Sale Deed of the year 1964 dated 07.12.1964,
which was registered as Document No.4992 of 1964 at the office of the Sub Registrar
Office, Madras-Chengalpattu. That is how the petitioner traced title over the properties
and according to the petitioner, in view of the said title, which the petitioner was able to
derive, the petitioner and before whom his father and the predecessor-in-title, had been
in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property since 1920 and accordingly the
patta had been issued in the name of the petitioner's predecessor-in-title and
subsequently in the name of the petitioner.
4. However, the contra case of the fifth respondent is that, the fifth respondent
Krishnamurthy is the son of Balasubramanian, who is the son of Prabala Krishnaswamy,
whose father was Prabala Seshachalayya. In other words, the fifth respondent
Krishnamurthy is the great grandson of Prabala Seshachalayya. It is the further case of
the fifth respondent that, though the Will had been executed by Prabala Seshachalayaa in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
1903 and got probated in 1904, S.S.Krishnaswamy Iyer, the second son-in-law of Prabala
Seshachalayya was only appointed as an Executor. Therefore, in the year 1920, the only
son ie., the grandfather of the fifth respondent Prabala Krishnaswamy Iyer ie., Minor
Krishnaswamy, since had become major, the property, if at all had been sold, could have
been sold only by the grandfather of the fifth respondent Prabala Krishnaswamy ie., Minor
Krishnaswamy and not by S.S.Krishnaswamy Iyer. Therefore, according to the fifth
respondent, the very Sale Deed of the year 1920 itself is an unlawful one or void and
therefore, based on the said Sale Deed of the year 1920, the predecessor-in-title cannot
claim titles or the vendors of the petitioner's father cannot claim title by virtue of the 1964
Sale Deed, as it is also equally void. It is the further case of the fifth respondent that,
even according to the Revenue Authorities, sometime in 1950, under the Estates Abolition
Act, 1948, the land in question of the village concerned has been taken over and Ryotwari
Pattas were issued. When that being so, the patta, if at all anything had been issued, that
can be based on the Ryotwari Patta issued under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 and not
based on the aforesaid two Sale Deeds of 1920 and 1964.
5. It is the further case of the fifth respondent that, he came to know these factors
very late and therefore, the fifth respondent had given an application to the revenue
authorities to cancel the patta that stood in the name of the petitioner or others and to re-
issue the patta in the name of the fifth respondent. The said application given by the fifth
respondent was considered by the Sub-Collector, Ponneri / first respondent herein, who
passed an order on 24.04.2017 by giving detailed discussion over the issue raised therein
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
and he had ultimately directed to cancel the patta stood in the name of the petitioner and
others, who are the sons of D.Srihari Rao, who purchased the property, and restored the
patta in the name of Minor Krishnaswamy Iyer with Guardian S.S.Krishnaswamy Iyer ie.,
the grandfather of the fifth respondent.
6. With this case and counter case, as projected by the petitioner as well as the
fifth respondent, felt aggrieved over the said order passed by the first respondent dated
24.04.2017, cancelling the patta that stood in the name of the petitioner and another and
restoring the patta in the name of the grandfather of the fifth respondent ie., Minor
Krishnaswamy Iyer with Guardian S.S.Krishnaswamy Iyer, the petitioner has filed this writ
petition, challenging the said order with the aforesaid prayer.
7. Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that, the 1920 Sale Deed had been effected, whereby the vendors of the
petitioner's father purchased the property in question and subsequently in 1964, the
vendors of the petitioner's father sold the property to the petitioner's father and while
these two transactions had taken place, the said Prabala Seshachalayya was alive as he
expired only in 1968. Therefore, only during the life time of Prabala Seshachalayya, these
two sale deeds were effected, pursuant to which patta has been changed in the name of
the owners of the property as per the sale deed. That is how the petitioner claims title
over the property as well as the patta.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
8. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that, after obtaining this order dated
24.04.2017, which is impugned herein, the fifth respondent has filed a Civil Suit in
O.S.No.290 of 2018 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri, seeking for a
declaratory relief for a judgment and decree to declare the respective sale effected in
1920 and 1964 as null and void and consequently to declare the title over the property of
the plaintiff ie., the fifth respondent. Therefore, by citing this development, the learned
Senior Counsel would submit that, if at all the fifth respondent has gone to the Civil Court
belatedly only in the year 2018, the said suit itself cannot be maintained because of the
limitation, as admittedly the minor Krishnaswamy, who is the grandfather of the fifth
respondent has become major in 1916 and therefore the limitation was over long back
and therefore, at this juncture the fifth respondent cannot step into the shoes of his
grandfather and file this suit to seek perfection of the title over the property at this length
of time. Therefore, in order to reject the plaint, the petitioner herein, who is the
defendant in the suit, filed a revision petition before this Court to strike off the plaint in
C.R.P.No.2044 of 2019, which is also pending, where there has been an interim order of
stay granted and it is operating now.
9. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that, the impugned order
passed by the first respondent ought not to have been passed by tracing the title from
1920 or before that and by giving the finding that, the minor Krishnaswamy, grandfather
of the fifth respondent became major in the year 1916 and therefore the Sale Deed of the
year 1920 ought not to have been executed as Executor and by giving such reasons since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
the first respondent has come to the conclusion that, the patta stood in the name of
minor Krishnaswamy ie., the grandfather of the fifth respondent shall be restored now, is
an extreme order passed by the first respondent by transgressing the jurisdiction vested
in him under the provisions of the Patta Passbook Act and also against the settled legal
position in this regard that, the Revenue Authorities cannot decide the title over the
property and if there has been any dispute over the title of the property between the
parties, they should only be relegated to the Civil Court to establish their right and to get
a declaratory decree.
10. By making these submissions, the learned Senior Counsel seeks the indulgence
of this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 by restoring the patta
position, which stood prior to 24.04.2017 in respect of the subject land.
11. Per contra, Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, learned counsel appearing for the fifth
respondent made submissions almost in the similar lines in respect of the genealogical
tree is concerned, where he submitted that, since S.S.Krishnaswamy Iyer @
Krishnaswamy was only made the Executor of the Will by the Prabala Seshachalayya in
the year 1903 and all the properties must have devolved to his son Minor Krishnaswamy,
who is none other than the grandfather of the fifth respondent, in the year 1920, knowing
fully well that the Minor Krishnaswamy has become major in the year 1916 itself, ought
not to have executed any sale in favour of any third parties, as the one now has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
done by the sale deed dated 31.03.1920 to and in favour of the predecessor-in-title as
claimed by the petitioner.
12. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent would also submit that, if the 1920
Sale Deed itself is void, equally the subsequent Sale Deed in the year 1964 to and in
favour of the petitioner's father also can only be treated as void document and based on
these two sale deeds, the petitioner cannot trace the title over the property in dispute and
therefore, the patta issued in the name of the grandfather of the fifth respondent ie.,
Minor Krishnaswamy with Guardian S.S.Krishnaswamy Iyer should be restored. This alone
has been done by the first respondent in the impugned order dated 24.04.2017.
13. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent would also submit that, yet
another reason has been stated by the first respondent in the impugned order that, as per
the Estates Abolition Act, the entire properties which are in dispute along with other
properties in the village concerned has been taken over and Ryotwari Pattas were issued.
When that being so, as per the Ryotwari Patta issued in respect of the disputed lands, the
pattadars can claim title over the property and in this regard, neither the 1920 Sale Deed
nor the 1964 Sale Deed will prevail over the Ryotwari Patta issued in favour of the
petitioner's father and that factor has also been taken note of by the first respondent
while passing the impugned order. Therefore, in addition to the 1920 and 1964 defective
Sale Deeds or void Sale Deeds, the other reason of Ryotwari Patta also fortified the
reasons and the conclusion arrived at by the first respondent in the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
Therefore, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent seeks to sustain the impugned
order.
14. I have also heard Mr.Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the fourth
respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer who had passed the impugned order and has
been arrayed as fourth respondent in his personal capacity. Learned counsel would
submit that, when an application was filed by the fifth respondent making complaint that
the property in question belongs to the fifth respondent and how he inherited the
property from his forefathers also had been given and based on which an application was
given to cancel the patta stood in the name of the petitioner and another, based on the
1920 and 1964 Sale Deed and also he had made a request to have an enquiry on the
issue as to whether the patta issued in the name of the petitioner other than the fifth
respondent or his family members is justifiable or not, it has become the duty of the
fourth respondent, who worked as Sub Collector / Revenue Divisional Officer to look into
the matter and accordingly, he enquired the matter and passed the impugned order dated
24.04.2017.
15. The order passed by the fourth respondent, in his capacity as Sub Collector, as
he then was in 2017, is purely an official function he discharged as per the provisions of
the Patta Passbook Act and the Revenue Standing Orders and therefore, whatever action
taken in good faith by exercising his official position cannot be treated as any biased
action. Therefore, in this regard no guilt can be attributed against the fourth respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
and whatever allegations made are untenable and unjustifiable and on that basis,
unnecessarily the fourth respondent has been dragged into this writ petition proceedings
and has been made a party. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that, the fourth
respondent's name can be struck off from the array of parties in this writ petition and
whatever allegations made against the fourth respondent in the affidavit filed in support
of this writ petition can be eschewed and suitable orders to that effect can be passed, he
contended.
16. Heard Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Counsel appearing for the
official respondents ie., first to third respondents. He would submit that, the impugned
order passed by the first respondent can be traced with the power and the jurisdiction
exercised under the provisions of the Patta Passbook Act.
17. Even though law has been well settled in this regard by various
pronouncements of this Court as well as the Honourable Apex Court that, insofar as the
dispute with regard to the title of the property concerned, where rival claims have been
made with regard to the title of the property before Revenue Authorities, normally
Revenue Authorities would relegate the parties to the Civil Court to get a declaratory
relief, however, if the Revenue Authorities feel that either of the party is perfected with
the title and there has been no difficulty in accepting the title projected by either of the
party, based on such title which has already been established and produced before the
Revenue Authorities, certainly the Revenue Authorities can exercise the power to issue a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
patta or cancel the patta already issued in the name of any third party and in this regard,
such limited power exercisable by the Revenue Authorities is ensured under the provisions
of the Patta Passbook Act. Therefore, only in that line and only within that limitation, the
first respondent has exercised the power and passed the impugned order dated
24.04.2017.
18. Learned Government Counsel would further submit that, if at all this Court
finds that the first respondent has given any findings, which tend to make a finding with
regard to the title of the property concerned either in favour of the petitioner or the fifth
respondent, that can only be treated as a necessary finding for giving his reasons to reach
the conclusion that he has arrived at in the impugned order and beyond which it cannot
be construed that, he finds any new point for declaring the title of the property either in
favour of the fifth respondent or otherwise. Therefore, the learned Government Counsel
also would make an attempt to sustain the order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the first
respondent.
19. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the materials placed on record.
20. First of all, before the first respondent, when he was hearing the application
submitted by the fifth respondent for cancelling the patta stood in the name of the
petitioner and to issue patta in the name of the grandfather of the fifth respondent,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
whether there has been any title issue between the parties or not should be examined
first and after examining the same only, the first respondent should proceed to decide the
issue in accordance with the provisions established under the Patta Passbook Act as well
as the Rules made thereunder.
21. Here in the case in hand, the petitioner traced title by placing reliance on two
Sale Deeds ie., 1920 and 1964, whereas the fifth respondent traced title by way of
inheritance of the property from his grandfather one Minor Krishnaswamy Iyer during the
minorship or after he became major, where third party right had been created by the
Executor of the Will of the original owner of the property Prabala Seshachalayya. Those
documents, if at all goes against the recital made in the Will, should be challenged in the
manner known to law. Here in the case in hand, two documents viz., 1920 and 1964 Sale
Deeds are mainly projected on behalf of the petitioner to claim title and possession over
the property in question. It is a fact that, both the Sale Deeds have not been questioned
by the fifth respondent till the impugned order was passed.
22. However, the very same fifth respondent, after the impugned order was passed
and this writ petition was filed in the year 2017, has subsequently gone to the Civil Court
by filing the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.290 of 2018 on the file of the IV Additional District
Judge, Ponneri seeking various reliefs as set out herein above. Therefore, the fact
remains that, the fifth respondent thought of perfecting his title by getting a declaratory
decree. Therefore, he has rightly approached the Civil Court and filed a Civil Suit as set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
out above. As on today, the Civil Suit is pending, as against which, to strike off the plaint,
though the petitioner filed a civil revision petition in C.R.P.No.2044 of 2019 before this
Court, where he was able to get an interim order and the same is still pending, ultimately
it is to be decided whether the Sale Deeds of 1920 and 1964 are valid Sale Deeds or not.
Unless and until the validity of the sale deeds is discussed and decided by a competent
Civil Court, based on the said Sale Deeds, no conclusion can be arrived at by the Revenue
Authorities by exercising their power under the Patta Passbook Act. If at all the Sale
Deeds of 1920 and 1964 are declared to be valid in the suit filed by the fifth respondent,
then the whole findings given by the Revenue Authorities ie., the first respondent in the
impugned order, would become inoperative and otiose. Instead, if the fifth respondent
succeeds in the suit and get a declaratory decree that, the Sale Deeds of 1920 and 1964
are void and the consequential actions taken place are also equally void, then the findings
given by the first respondent in the impugned order may sustain.
23. However, hypothetically we cannot presume at this moment that, the findings
and conclusion reached by the first respondent would be sustainable or not.
24. However, as on date, the 1920 Sale Deed and 1964 Sale Deed, in the eye of
law, have not been declared void and therefore, the law will presume that, those
documents are valid. When that being so, at that juncture, ie., on 24.04.2017 and even
today if a question is raised as to whether the findings given by the first respondent in the
impugned order will sustain or not, the answer would be in the negative that, it would not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
sustain.
25. It is further to be noted that, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel
for the parties, that the power of the Revenue Authorities in deciding the issue for grant
of patta or cancellation of patta is only a limited area. While deciding those issues, the
Revenue Authorities very often are seen transgressing their jurisdiction and make
comments which tend to decide the title over the property. The Courts have often given
diktat saying that, they cannot violate the jurisdiction towards deciding the title. One such
decision is reported in 2011 (5) CTC 1994 “Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., -Vs-
The District Collector, Kancheepuram and Others” , where the Division Bench of
this Court, having considered a similar issue, has given the following directions.
“18. As far as the power of this Court to entertain a writ petition on disputed
questions, we may refer to the following decisions of the Supreme Court in Arya
Vysya Sabha and others v. The Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious
Institutions & Endowments , Hyderabad and others, (1976) 1 SCC 292, Rourkela
Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., and another, (2003) 4 SCC 317
and Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana and others, (2006) 9 SCC 256. Therefore,
when disputed questions are involved, this Court will not entertain the writ
petition and adjudicate upon such dispute, as it is for the parties to approach the
civil Court to decide the issue. However, in the event the order challenged in the
writ petition is questioned on the ground of want of jurisdiction, certainly this
Court would entertain the writ petition and particularly when such an order was
passed when effective remedy is available before a civil Court for a person or
persons who seek for cancellation of patta. As already pointed out, though the
fourth respondent has filed appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking for
cancellation of patta, in view of the fact that the Revenue Divisional Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
cannot go into the civil dispute, his order cancelling the patta by deciding the
disputed question of title is without jurisdiction. In this context, we may refer to
the proviso to section 14 of the Act which bars the suit. The proviso reads that if
any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry
made in the patta pass book under this Act, he may institute a suit against any
person denying or interested to deny his title to such right of declaration of his
right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act and the entry in the patta pass
book shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. By that proviso,
in the event any grievance is made by the fourth respondent over the patta
granted to the appellant, he should have approached the civil Court for necessary
orders. In the event the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to go into
the disputed question of title and in spite of that fact if he decides the same, on the
very same yardstick, the further remedy is only a revision under section 13 of the
Act which is limited to calling for and examining the records of either the
Tahsildar or the appellate authority by the District Revenue Officer and such
revisional power cannot be equated to appellate power. Hence, the contention of
the fourth respondent that the appellant has got an effective remedy of appeal and
without availing such remedy cannot file the writ petition, has no merit.
Accordingly, the said contention is rejected.
19. Nevertheless, the core question involved in the writ petition is as to whether in
the given facts and circumstances of the case, it could be entertained in the event
patta has been granted in favour of a particular individual. On the strength of the
title or possession, if any other 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
authority. In the event the Revenue Divisional Officer by exceeding his
jurisdiction decides the question of title and cancels the patta, certainly the
aggrieved person can approach this Court by way of a writ petition on the ground
that the Revenue Divisional Officer was not competent to go into the title. The
question of alternative remedy is not available to the aggrieved person as for the
very same reason the District Collector also cannot go into the disputed question
regarding the title or possession, as the case may be, in the event an appeal is
filed.
20. It is the specific case of the appellant herein that the property was initially
registered in the name of one Ramanathan and others, who were granted Patta
No.243 in the year 1963. Thereafter, the property was conveyed to one Palani and
he was issued with the Patta No.707. The said Palani conveyed 80 cents of land
in Survey No.93/3 to one Shoba Ramalingam in the year 1981, who was issued
with the Patta No.459. The appellant company acquired 51 cents of land in
Survey No.93/3 from the said Shoba Ramalingam by a registered sale deed in the
year 1992 and was issued with the Patta No.1515. As far as the other land in
Survey No.93/4A is concerned, the land was originally owned by Shoba
Ramalingam having purchased from one Annamalai Chettiar in the year 1981 by
a registered sale deed and she has been issued with the Patta No.459. The
appellant company acquired 57 cents from the said Shoba Ramalingam by a
registered sale deed of the year 1992 and has been issued with the Patta No.1515.
It is the specific case of the appellant that a portion of the land to an extent of
0.163 square metres in Survey No.93/4 was acquired by the Highways
Department and they were paid compensation. It is their further case that right
from the date of purchase, they are in possession of the land. On the other hand, it
is the case of the fourth respondent, E.Kumar that he submitted a petition dated
21.2.2005 requesting the grant of patta in Survey No.93/3 to an extent of 1.32
acres in favour of Alamelu Ammal from whom he has got power of attorney for
the said property. He claimed that the said Alamelu Ammal was the owner of the
property. The Revenue Divisional Officer, having gone into the rival claims,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
ultimately decided that the land belongs to Alamelu Ammal and on that ground
the power of attorney holder was entitled to seek for cancellation of patta given in
favour of the appellant company and consequently, directed the registration of
patta in favour of the said Alamelu Ammal. In the impugned proceedings dated
16.7.2005, for the purpose of cancelling the patta granted in favour of the
appellant, the Revenue Divisional Officer, having gone into the rival contentions,
found that Thiru Palani Achari, S/o Kanniappa Achari had mistakenly sold the
land to Tmt.Shoba Ramalingam registered in Document No.743 of 1981. By this
finding, he has gone into the genuineness of the sale effected in the year 1981 in
the proceedings under section 12 of the Act after a lapse of nearly 24 years. In
our opinion, the dispute being one of civil nature, the title of either the appellant
company or the said Alamelu Ammal cannot be gone into by the Revenue
Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer having gone into such title has
not only decided to cancel the patta in favour of the appellant company, but also
directed the registration of patta in favour of Alamelu Ammal. Both the above acts
are without jurisdiction. In the event the act of the Revenue Divisional Officer is
without jurisdiction, the writ petition is maintainable. Accordingly, the contention
of Mr.P.Wilson that the writ petition itself is not maintainable cannot be accepted.
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
writ appeal is allowed. No costs.”
26. Yet another decision of another Division Bench reported in 2011 (5) CTC 241
also has been cited, where the Honourable Division Bench has stated as follows.
“ 28.In view of the foregoing narrations, it is clear that there is a dispute
regarding the title of the Fourth Respondent/Writ Petitioner as well as the
Deceased Appellant/Fourth Respondent pertaining to 7.18 acres of land in
S.F.Nos.547 and 548, Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District. The District
Revenue Officer / First Respondent, relying upon the reports of the Second
Respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer and Third Respondent / Tahsildar, who
are his Officers, ordered deletion of the Fourth Respondent/Writ Petitioner's name
from the UDR Records and to include the name of the Deceased Appellant /
Fourth Respondent's predecessors in title viz., R.Karuppa Gounder and
N.Karuppa Gounder.
29.As per Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1986 (4 of
(1986), the entries in the Patta Pass-book and the certified copies of entries in
the Patta Pass-book shall be presumed to be true and correct, until the contrary is
proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. As a matter of fact, Section
6 of the Act envisages that the entries in the Patta Pass-book issued by the
Tahsildar as per Section 3 shall be prima facie evidence of title of the person, in
whose name the Patta Pass-book has been issued to the parcels of land entered in
the Patta Pass-book, free of any prior encumbrance, unless otherwise specified
therein. However, the Patta Pass-book being a prima facie evidence is a
rebuttable presumption in law, as opined by this Court.
30.From a reading of Rule 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules,
it is clear that if the Tahsildar is satisfied that a dispute concerning ownership of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
patta is already pending in a Court or issues are raised before him which impinge
on personal laws or laws of succession and all the parties interested do not agree
on the ownership in writing, he shall direct the concerned parties to obtain a
ruling on ownership from a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction before
changing the entries already recorded and existing in the various Revenue
Records. The Learned Single Judge, in paragraph No.19 of the order, had
specifically held that in terms of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4, the First Respondent /
District Revenue Officer ought to have directed the parties to go before the
competent Civil Forum for adjudication of dispute with regard to the ownership,
as the Fourth Respondent/Writ Petitioner and the Deceased Appellant / Fourth
Respondent disputes the version projected by each one of them.
31.......
32.......
33.....
34.......
35.Admittedly, in the instant case on hand, there is a serious dispute with regard
to the title of lands measuring an extent of 7.18 acres in S.F.Nos.547 and 548,
Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District . In cases of this nature, it is not open to
the Revenue Authorities, much less the First Respondent / District Revenue
Officer, to decide the same. In Civil Law, when there is a dispute between the
rival parties touching upon the title to the property, the competent forum would
be only the Civil Court. In the instant case, the First Respondent / District
Revenue Officer had not followed such a procedure. However, he had chosen to
decide the title in respect of the said property mainly relying upon the reports
submitted by the Second Respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer and the Third
Respondent / Tahsildar.
36.On a careful consideration of the factual position presented in the
instant case and in the light of the qualitative and quantitative discussions
mentioned supra, we have no hesitation to hold that the dispute between the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
parties relates to title of the lands measuring an extent of 7.18 acres in
S.F.Nos.547 and 548, Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District and the proper
forum for the parties to agitate and ventilate their grievances in respect of their
title to the said property is only before the competent Civil Forum. As such, we
come to an inevitable conclusion that the Learned Single Judge had rightly held
that it is open to the Fourth Respondent/Writ Petitioner and the Deceased
Appellant/Fourth Respondent to work out their remedies before the competent
Civil Forum in accordance with law. We are also of the considered view that the
dispute between the Fourth Respondent/Writ Petitioner and the Deceased
Appellant/Fourth Respondent is one of both mixed question of fact and law,
which needs to be gone into in detail by means of adducing oral and documentary
evidence by examining witnesses as the case may be and the only course open to
the parties is to approach the competent Civil Court.
37.In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs. Consequently, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge is
confirmed for the reasons assigned in this Writ Appeal. Connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. ”
27. Similar views have been expressed in “T.R.Dinakaran -Vs- The Revenue
Divisional Officer and Others” reported in 2012 (3) CTC 823 and also in “A.Asirul
Fasil -Vs- District Revenue Officer and others” reported in 2014(2) CWC 878.
28. All these judgments were cited on behalf of the petitioner and the legal
proposition as held in those decisions are not in much dispute as it is a settled legal
proposition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
29. Now the question before this Court is that, in view of the Civil Suit filed by the
fifth respondent and pending before the Civil Court concerned seeking declaratory relief
against the petitioner in respect of the documents ie., 1920 and 1964 Sale Deeds and
other connected or subsequent documents, whether the findings now given by the first
respondent in the impugned order will sustain in the eye of law or not.
30. As has been discussed above, the present findings and the reasoning given by
the first respondent to reach the conclusion to cancel the patta stood in the name of the
petitioner's father or the petitioner and to restore the patta in the name of Minor
Krishnaswamy, who was the grandfather of the fifth respondent, in the considered opinion
of this Court, ought not to have been made by the first respondent. Instead, the first
respondent ought to have relegated the parties to approach the Civil Court to get
declaratory relief and to establish their title over the property.
31. Even though such a direction was not given by the first respondent in the
impugned order, subsequently, realising the difficulty, the fifth respondent has gone to the
Civil Court and filed a Civil Suit.
32. It is also to be noted that, as against the said Civil Suit filed by the fifth
respondent, the petitioner, on the ground of delay and other grounds, wanted to strike off
the plaint and therefore, invoking the supervisory power under Article 226 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
Constitution of India, the petitioner filed a revision petition in C.R.P.No.2044 of 2019,
where an interim order of stay of conducting the suit seems to have been granted.
33. However, in view of the aforesaid factual matrix, there is a dispute with regard
to the title over the property, as both the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent claims
title over the property in question by two different sources, one is by law of inheritance
and another by way of Sale Deed, through which the petitioner claims that, he purchased
the property through a valid instrument. When that being so and in view of the fifth
respondent having gone to the Civil Court and filed a suit, the present findings given in
the impugned order and the conclusion reached by the first respondent may not hold
good and therefore, those findings and the conclusion arrived at by the first respondent in
the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
34. However, at the same time, if the impugned order is interfered and quashed
and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent, the first respondent will be in the
same precarious position to decide the issue raised by the parties with regard to the
patta, as the Civil Court is yet to decide the issue. Therefore, till the Civil Court decides
the issue, the plea raised by the fifth respondent on the issue of patta need not be
decided by the Revenue Authorities and in that case, what was the position prevailing
prior to 24.04.2017 ie., the date of the impugned order can very well be restored and be
maintained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
35. In that view of the matter and the discussions herein above made, this Court is
inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition with the following orders.
● That the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 is quashed.
● As a sequel, insofar as the patta to the property in question stood as on
23.04.2017 shall be restored with a condition that, by restoring the
position dated 23.04.2017, the petitioner shall not try to encumber the
property in question subject to the following further directions.
● The fifth respondent shall pursue the suit in O.S.No.290 of 2018 on the
file of the IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri and in this regard, in view
of the aforesaid discussion, this Court feels that, the Civil Court shall give
priority to the said Suit and decide the same on merits as early as
possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
● In view of the aforesaid directions, this Court expects the petitioner to
inform this development before the concerned Court, where
C.R.P.No.2044 of 2019 is pending and accordingly get a disposal of the
same, which includes withdrawal of the said C.R.P.
● In view of the aforesaid directions, where there is likelihood of withdrawal
or disposal of C.R.P.No.2044 of 2019 filed by the petitioner, there shall be
some protective orders for both the petitioner as well as the fifth
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
● There shall be a further direction to the IV Additional District Judge,
Ponneri to take up and decide I.A.No.251 of 2018 in O.S.No.290 of 2018
within two months and for such endeavour, both the parties shall give
their cooperation without taking any unnecessary adjournments. For the
said two months ie., till the disposal of I.A.No.251 of 2018, the petitioner
is precluded from making any encumbrance of the property in question or
creating any third party rights.
● The six months outer limit provided by this Court 1 st above direction to
complete the suit shall be subject to the endeavour to be made by the
petitioner to file any interlocutory application invoking Order VII Rule 11
of C.P.C.,to strike off the plaint and if any such move is made by the
petitioner, that interlocutory application also shall be taken up and
decided first by the trial Court and subject to the decision to be made in
such interlocutory application to be filed under Order VII Rule 11 of
C.P.C., the six months outer limit indicated above shall work out.
● In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court feels that, the array of parties
made in respect of the fourth respondent in his personal capacity may not
be required. Therefore, the fourth respondent is struck off from the array
of parties in this writ petition and whatever the allegations made against
him by the petitioner in this writ petition is hereby eschewed.
● Since the status quo ante with regard to the mutation in the revenue
records as it stood on 23.04.2017 is ordered herein above, such mutation
as on 23.04.2017 shall be made by the revenue authorities concerned
especially the second respondent Tahsildar within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
35. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.07.2021
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
KST
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer
Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
2.The Tahsildar
Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
3.The District Revenue Officer
Office of the District Revenue Officer
Tiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
kst
W.P.No.12694 of 2017
14.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
