Madras High Court
Ellamma vs The District Revenue Officer on 20 July, 2021
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED : 20.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Ellamma ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The District Revenue Officer
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
2.The Sub Collector
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Tahsildar
Denkanikottai Taluk
Krishnagiri District.
4.The Village Administrative Officer
Kundarampalli Village,
Denkanikottai Taluk
Krishnagiri District.
5.Inayathulla .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance
of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the production of the entire records ending
with the order passed in Pa.Mu.No.20619/2014/J-2 dated 08.09.2015 by the first
respondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent to restore the patta in the
name of the petitioner in respect of the vacant land measuring about 61 cents in Survey
No.171/2, Kundumaranapalli Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, within the Sub Registration
District of Kelamangalam and Registration District of Krishnagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 12
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr.S.D.S.Phillip
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson, Government Counsel
-for RR 1 to 4
Mr.V.Raghavachari – for R5
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus calling for the
production of the entire records ending with the order passed in Pa.Mu.No.20619/2014/J-
2 dated 08.09.2015 by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the first
respondent to restore the patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of the vacant land
measuring about 61 cents in Survey No.171/2, Kundumaranapalli Village, Denkanikottai
Taluk, within the Sub Registration District of Kelamangalam and Registration District of
Krishnagiri.
2. In respect of the property to the extent of 0.24.5 Hectares situated at Survey
No.171/2, Kundumaranapalli Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, it seems that
there has been a dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. The petitioner
claimed title by various documents, whereas the fifth respondent also seems to have
claimed title by producing various documents.
3. In this context, the matter has already gone to the first respondent District
Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri in the first round, where the District Revenue Officer, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
having considered the rival claims made by the parties, passed an order on 14.05.2007,
where he has rejected the claim made by the present petitioner for issuance of patta to
the said land by stating the following reasons.
g[y gug;g gl;lh gl;lhjhuh; g[jpa gug;g[ gl;lh gl;lhjhuhpd;
vz; [ V/br vz; bgah; cl;gphpt[ vz; bgah;
171 1.94 22 o/ma;ag;gh 171/1 1.34 22 o/ma;ag;gh
Kdpak;kh (0.54.0)
171/2 0.60 576 Kdpak;kh
(0.24.5)
bkhj;jk; 1.94
(0.78.5)
nkw;go cl;gphpt[ bra;ag;gl;l ehspypUe;J jpUkjp/ Kdpak;kh bgahpy;
jdpg;gl;lh jhf;fyhfp mtuJ mDgtj;jpy; ,Ue;J cs;sJ/ 1974 ? k; Mz;L Kjy; 2006 ?
k; Mz;L tiuapyhd ml';fy; fzf;F gjpt[fs; kw;Wk; mtuhy; epythp
brYj;jg;gl;likf;fhd fe;jha urPJfs; njd;fdpnfhl;il tl;lhl;rpauhy; ghprPyiz
bra;ag;gl;L ePz;lfhy mDgtk; mthplk; ,Ue;jjhf jdJ jPh;g;gpy; tpsk;gp cs;shh;/
epy clik nkk;ghl;L jpl;lj;jpYk; nkw;go epyk; jpUkjp/Kdpak;kh bgahpnyna
gl;lh gjpthfp cs;sJ/ mjd; gpd;dh; jpUkjp/Kdpak;khs; jpU/KUnf&; vd;gtUf;F
fpuak; 2005 ?y; Mtz vz; 3082-2005 ehs; 22/9/2005 ? d; go fpuak; bfhLj;J
mthplkpUe;J jpU/,dhaj;Jy;yh vd;gth; Mtz vz; 1922-2006 ehs; 3/4/2007 d;
go fpuak; bgw;W cs;shh;/
tHf;fpw;F cl;gl;l epyj;jpd; chpik Fwpj;J xU Kot[f;F tUk; epiyapy;
njd;fdpnfhl;il tl;lhl;rpah; kw;Wk; xNh; rhuhl;rpah; jpU/,daj;Jy;yh bgahpy;
gl;lh khw;wk; braj; cj;jut[fis epiy epWj;jp cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/ ,t; cj;jut[ kPJ
Ml;nrgiz VnjDkpUg;gpd; ,t; cj;jut[ fpilf;fg;bgw;w 30 ehl;fSf;Fs; brd;id epy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
eph;thf Mizah; mth;fSf;F nky; KiwaPL bra;J bfhs;s kDjhuh;
mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwhh;/”
4. As against the said order passed by the first respondent, in fact the petitioner
filed a writ petition in W.P.No.25157 of 2008. However, for the reasons best known to the
petitioner, she withdrew the said writ petition on 10.06.2013. Recording her submission,
the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the following order.
“ The above writ petition is listed under the caption 'for withdrawal' at the
instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the letter dated
05.06.2013 given to the Registry. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to
withdraw the writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.
Recording the same, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently,
interim order stands vacated and M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed. No costs.”
5. Thereafter, the second round of fight seems to have started between the
petitioner and the fifth respondent, where, once again the matter has gone to the first
respondent ie., the District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri, who, after considering the claim
and counter claim made by the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent, has passed an
order on 08.09.2015 stating the following.
“ kDjhuh;. vjph; kDjhuh; thf;FK:yk; kw;Wk; Mtz';fs; vd;dhy; ftdKld; ghprPyiz
bra;ag;gl;lJ/ fpU&;zfphp khtl;lk;. njd;fdpf;nfhl;il tl;lk;. Fe;Jkhudg;gs;sp fpuhk
g[y vz; 171-2 g[“;ir tp!;jPuzk; 0/24/5 b\f;nlh; epyk; bjhlh;ghf Ke;ija Miz
,t;tYtyf khtl;l tUtha; mYtyh; e/f/4287-2007-n$2 ehs; 14/05/2007 ? d; go
Vw;fdnt cj;jputplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ kPz;Lk; nkw;go epyk; bjhlh;ghf cj;jut[
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
,t;tYtyfj;jpy; gpwg;gpf;f ,ayhJ/ vdnt fpU&;zfphp khtl;l tUtha; mYtyh;
e/f/4287-2007-n$2 ehs; 14/05/2007 ? d; bray;Kiw Mizapy; kDjhuh; kw;Wk;
vjph; kDjhuh; Ml;nrgid ,Ug;gpd; chpikapay; ePjpkd;wk; mqfp jPh;t[ fhqkhW
cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ/”
6. Felt aggrieved over the said order passed by the first respondent dated
08.09.2015 the present writ petition has been filed.
7. Heard Mr.S.D.S.Phillip, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would
submit that, though the earlier order dated 14.05.2007 passed by the first respondent
having been challenged, the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner, in order
to re-agitate the issue in the manner known to law.
8. Subsequently, the issue has been once again re-agitated and ultimately the
matter has gone to the first respondent for re-consideration. While reconsidering the
same, the first respondent, reiterating the earlier order dated 14.05.2007, has decided to
reject the claims of the parties by driving the parties to approach the Civil Court.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this context would further submit that, the
petitioner already approached the Civil Court by filing a civil suit in O.S.No.102 of 2007 on
the file of the Sub Court, Hosur for permanent injunction restraining the fifth respondent
from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the
petitioner. Though the suit was dismissed for default on 11.01.2008, it was subsequently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
restored and is still pending for trial.
10. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue has not
been concluded. Therefore, at this juncture, the first respondent being the head of the
Revenue District in dealing with these kind of matters of issuance and cancellation of
Patta as per the provisions of the Patta Passbook Act, ought to have considered the merits
and demerits (or) claim and counter claim of the parties and accordingly a final decision
ought to have been arrived at. Instead, the first respondent, simply referring the earlier
order dated 14.05.2007, and rejecting the claim of the petitioner by driving the parties to
the Civil Court, which is absolutely an order abdicating the jurisdiction vested in him.
Therefore, on that ground itself the impugned order is liable to be quashed, he
contended.
11. He would also submit that, prior to 1974, the petitioner's predecessor-in-title
can claim title over the property in question. However, insofar as the fifth respondent is
concerned, he would be able to trace the title only from 1974 and subsequent to the
Settlement Survey, as if that he has purchased the property from the predecessor-in-title
one Muniyamma and therefore, those aspects have not been considered by the first
respondent in proper perspective before deciding the issue raised therein. Therefore, for
that reason also the impugned order is liable to be interfered with, he contended.
12. Per contra, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the fifth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
respondent would submit that, how the fifth respondent traced title over the property in
question has been given in detail in the earlier order passed by the first respondent dated
14.05.2007, based on which the claim of the petitioner was rejected as early as on
14.05.2007 itself, as against which though a writ petition was filed by the petitioner, the
same was admittedly withdrawn without any liberty even to agitate the issue in the
manner known to law. Therefore, the issue has been concluded once.
13. Once the said issue has been concluded, the same is now sought to be re-
agitated by the petitioner and that is why in the impugned order dated 08.09.2015 the
first respondent has stated that, the issue has already been concluded by the earlier order
passed by the first respondent on 14.05.2007. Therefore, in this regard, once again an
order cannot be passed on the same subject matter, with regard to the same plea raised
by the petitioner. Therefore, the first respondent has rightly relegated the parties to
approach the Civil Court to establish their rights, he contended.
14. On the other hand, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Counsel
appearing for the official respondents would submit that, as has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the fifth respondent, the issue has already been concluded by the
earlier order passed by the first respondent dated 14.05.2007, as against which, no
further appeal has been filed before the Commissioner for Revenue Administration at that
time. However, though a writ petition was filed as stated above in W.P.No.25157 of 2008,
having kept the writ petition pending for nearly about five years, for the reasons best
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
known to her, the petitioner has withdrawn the same on 10.06.2013. Thereby, what has
been decided by the first respondent by the order dated 14.05.2007 has become final.
Therefore, once again the said issue cannot be re-agitated by the petitioner against the
fifth respondent. That has also been gone into and ultimately the first respondent has
passed a detailed order, of course, mainly giving the reason that, the issue since was
concluded by the order dated 14.05.2007, once again further order cannot be passed by
the very same authority. Therefore, contending that the parties were rightly relegated to
the Civil Court,hence the learned Government Counsel seeks sustainment of the
impugned order and dismissal of the writ petition.
15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and have perused the materials placed on record.
16. If at all the petitioner claims title over the property, first of all that should have
been proved by producing the necessary documents before the revenue authorities and
the revenue authorities, only on the basis of the documents to be filed by the rival
claimants, and after verifying the revenue records, will come to a prima facie conclusion
as to in whose name the Patta should stand.
17. Supposing if there is a conflicting claim between the parties with regard to the
ownership or title of the property in question, the revenue authorities can simply relegate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
the parties to the civil Court to establish their rights.
18. This position has been reiterated by this Court in number of judgments, where,
if at all any orders are passed by the revenue authorities which tend to decide the title
over the property that had been viewed as a transgression of the jurisdiction vested in
them under the various provisions of the Patta Passbook Act.
19. Here in the case in hand, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the respondents, the first respondent has passed an order on 14.05.2007,
where he has given his reasons as to why Patta should be granted in the name of the fifth
respondent and also the reason as to why he has confirmed the order passed by the
lower authorities issuing Patta in favour of the fifth respondent. The relevant portion of
the order dated 14.05.2007 has already been quoted herein above.
20. As against the said order, though a writ petition was immediately filed in the
year 2008 by the petitioner, the same after having allowed to be kept pending for five
years, was withdrawn suddenly on 10.06.2013 without any conditions.
21. Subsequently, it seems that the petitioner has once again started her crusade
in the second round, that too before the very same revenue authorities, which ultimately
came to a rest before the first respondent, where the first respondent, after considering
the issue in detail, passed the impugned order dated 08.09.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
22. I have gone through the reasons stated by the first respondent in the
impugned order, which has also been quoted herein above, where the first respondent, of
course, rightly stated that, the issue has been concluded by the earlier order passed by
the very same first respondent on 14.05.2007, which though was challenged by way of a
writ petition, which also was withdrawn subsequently, thus making the order of the
respondent final.
23. Therefore, at this juncture, since there has been rival claim between the
petitioner and the fifth respondent, status quo which has already been maintained
granting Patta in favour of the fifth respondent cannot be altered or changed unless and
until a conclusion is reached by way of a declaratory decree from the competent Civil
Court.
24. That is the reason why the first respondent has relegated the parties to
approach the Civil Court to get a declaratory decree. The said view taken by the first
respondent in the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this Court, is justifiable
and sustainable, as there is no plausible reasons to interfere with the same.
25. In this context, if at all the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court by
filing a bare injunction suit, it is open to pursue the same. However, this Court wants to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
remind the petitioner that, mere filing of a bare injunction suit will not confer title on the
petitioner. The petitioner can take suitable steps to approach the Civil Court for seeking
an appropriate declaratory decree seeking title over the property in question and if such
attempt is made by the petitioner and if she ultimately succeeds in her attempt to
approach the Civil Court by filing a suit for declaratory decree, depending upon the
outcome of the Civil Court decree, the parties can work out their remedy. Until such time,
this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order. What has been stated in the
impugned order insofar as the Patta in respect of the property in question, is to be
sustained. Therefore, the prayer sought for in this writ petition fails and the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed.
26. With the above observations, hence this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
20.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
KST
1.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
2.The Sub Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Tahsildar, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
4.The Village Administrative Officer, Kundarampalli Village,
Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
kst
W.P.No.37442 of 2015
20.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
