Madras High Court
P.Balakrishnan vs The District Revenue Officer on 19 July, 2021
W.A.No.1325 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No.1325 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.8307 & 8310 of 2021
1.P.Balakrishnan
2.C.Sasikala .. Appellants
Vs
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Office of the District Revenue Officer,
Tiruppur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur.
3.R.Vengidupathy .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 11.11.2020 made in W.P.No.35902 of 2019.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Karthick, Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Aravind Subramanyam
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander
Government Counsel
for R1 and R2
No appearance for R3
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1325 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
Challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated
02.12.2019 with the consequential direction to restore the joint patta
till the termination of the civil suit pending filed by the appellants in
O.S.No.135 of 2018, W.P.No.35902 of 2019 has been filed. The
aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge as
could be seen from the following paragraphs:
"17. Both the 2nd respondent as well as the 1st
respondent have taken into consideration the entire
facts and circumstances of the case and passed the
impugned Order. The 1st and 2nd respondents did
not decide the title over the property as contended
by the learned counsel for the petitioners. On the
face of the records, it is seen that the heirs of
Palanisamy Gounder and the subsequent
purchasers were involved in various proceedings
before Civil Courts, Revenue Authorities and also a
criminal case and they never succeeded before any
authority. The petitioners who are deriving their
title through them, can never have a better claim or
title to the property. The 1st and 2nd respondents
were perfectly right in removing the names of all
the Pattadars in Patta No.1290 and directing the
names of the 3rd respondent and Manjula to be
added in the Patta. They have prima facie proved
their title for the entire extent of 11.10 acres in
Survey No.273. This Court does not find any
grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the
1st and 2nd respondents and the 1st and 2nd
respondents have given cogent reasons supported
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1325 of 2021
by records to justify their finding in favour of the
3rd respondent.
18. If the petitioners are aggrieved with the entry
made in the Patta Pass Book pursuant to the orders
passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents, it is always
left open to them to go before the Civil Court and
seek for declaration of title over the subject
property. In fact, they can even seek for an
amendment in the pending suit in O.S.No.135 of
2018, by adding the necessary reliefs, if the law so
permits.
19. In the light of the above discussion, this Court
does not find any ground to interfere with the
Impugned Order passed by the 1st respondent
dated 02.12.2019, confirming the order passed by
the 2nd respondent dated 18.02.2019 and
accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
and the learned Government Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and
3.Despite the name of the contesting respondent printed in the
cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the contesting
respondent/third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1325 of 2021
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that a comprehensive suit has been filed though
subsequently in O.S.No.35 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Palladam. The learned Single Judge after relegating the parties
to seek adjudication in the pending suit in O.S.No.135 of 2018 has
made an observation on merit, though on a prima facie view.
5. Upon hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge with respect to the final conclusion arrived at
except holding that the observation made that a prima facie case has
been made out in favour of the third respondent qua the title stands
eschewed.
6. When once it is held that the matter will have to be
adjudicated upon in the pending civil suit and the very patta
proceedings itself is on the prima facie view, the learned Single Judge
ought not to have given a prima facie finding on the title of the third
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1325 of 2021
7. In such view of the matter, the writ appeal stands disposed of
by directing the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur to decide
O.S.No.565 of 2019 filed by the third respondent along with
O.S.No.135 of 2018 and O.S.No.35 of 2021 filed by the appellants
pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam. The
aforesaid three cases are to be disposed of on their own merits,
without being influenced by any of the observations made by the
learned Single Judge and in the proceedings dated 18.02.2019 and the
consequential order passed on 02.12.2019. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, the I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur is directed to dispose of
the aforesaid matters within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(M.M.S., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
19.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1325 of 2021
To
1.The I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur.
2.The District Munsif, Palladam.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Office of the District Revenue Officer,
Tiruppur.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1325 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN,J.
mmi
W.A.No.1325 of 2021
19.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
