Madras High Court
Sarala vs The District Collector on 1 September, 2021
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
and M.P.Nos.1,2 of 2011, 1 of 2012
Sarala ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Office of the District Collector,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram.
4.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Tambaram.
5.The Commissioner,
Tambaram Municipality,
Tambaram.
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
6.Sri Subramanian Rail Nagar
Residents Welfare Association,
Represented by its President,
Mrs.Vrindha Kumari,
No.28/26, Sri Subramanian Rail Nagar,
Kadaperi, Tambaram,
Chennai - 600 045. ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records pertaining
to the order passed in Proceedings Pa.Mu.20329/2010/N.3. dated
23.07.2011 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Natarajan
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
1 to 4 Government Advocate
For Respondent 5 : Mr.P.Srinivas
For Respondent 6 : M/s.AL.Ganthimathi
********
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the
entire records pertaining to the order passed in Proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
Pa.Mu.20329/2010/N.3. dated 23.07.2011 on the file of the second
respondent and quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is in possession and enjoyment
of the ground and building premises bearing Door No.22, Rail Nagar,
Kadaperi, Tambaram, Chennai comprised in RS.No.126, 127. She derived
title by way of a settlement deed dated 14.03.2008 executed by her husband
registered vide Document No.2169 of 2008. Even before the settlement
deed the 6th respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.171 of 2000 on the file
of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram as against her husband for
permanent injunction.
3. Pending the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and as
per the report, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the suit
property. Therefore, the 6th respondent herein filed an amendment petition
to include the prayer of recovery of possession. However, the suit was
dismissed by the Judgment and Decree dated 07.06.2004 and aggrieved by
the same, the 6th respondent filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.46 of 2004 on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chengalput and the same was also
dismissed by the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2005.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the 6th respondent filed second appeal
before this Court in S.A.No.1049 of 2005. Simultaneously, the 6th
respondent also filed writ petition in W.P.No.22110 of 2006. The second
appeal and writ petition were heard together and the 6th respondent filed a
memo stating that the 6th respondent may be permitted to withdraw the
second appeal and the suit in O.S.No.171 of 2000 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Tambaram and to file a fresh suit for declaration and
recovery of possession on the same cause of action as the findings regarding
injunction are not challenged. In view of the said memo, this Court
permitted the 6th respondent to withdraw the second appeal and the suit. In
view of the same, the writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn.
5. However, the 6th respondent did not file any suit as per the leave
granted by this Court in second appeal. On the strength of the settlement
deed executed in favour of the petitioner, she applied for patta. On receipt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
of the said application, the 4th respondent herein, after obtaining the report
from the Government Pleader, granted patta by an order dated 27.12.2009.
The said order was challenged by the 5th respondent herein before the third
respondent by way of an appeal. By an order dated 08.04.2010 the third
respondent cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner herein.
6. It was challenged before this Court by the petitioner in
W.P.No.8372 of 2010 and this Court directed the petitioner to file revision
before the first respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner filed revision. After
hearing the parties concerned the first respondent dismissed the revision on
23.07.2011 and the review filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order
passed by the third respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
respondent passed the impugned order against the order passed by the Civil
Court and the same was confirmed by this Court. The possession and
enjoyment of the subject property is categorically proved by the petitioner
for the past several decades. It is also evident from the deposition of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
Town Planning Inspector in the suit in O.S.No.171 of 2000 who has
categorically deposed that he is aware of the suit property with direct
knowledge and it was not handed over to the 5th respondent by way of gift
deed by the original owner of the property. It was not maintained as a play
ground by the 5th respondent and there is no property belonging to the 5th
respondent kept in the suit property. Therefore the subject property was
never gifted to the 5th respondent while laying out the entire extent of the
property.
8. Though the lay out was approved and the house plots were
purchased by the members of the 5th respondent's association, the subject
property was never gifted in favour of the 5th respondent herein. Though
this Court granted leave to the 6th respondent to file a suit for declaration
and recovery of possession, even till today the 6th respondent did not file
any suit as against the petitioner herein. The petitioner has a valid title over
the property by virtue of the settlement deed executed in her favour and on
perusal of the Revenue documents the 4th respondent rightly ordered to
issue patta in favour of the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
9. When the 5th respondent has no say or title over the subject
property, he cannot have any grievance over the issuance of patta in favour
of the petitioner. Even then, on the influence of the 6th respondent, the 5th
respondent filed an appeal as against the issuance of patta as if the subject
property was already gifted in favour of the 5th respondent by laying out the
total extent of the property and it was meant for play ground.
10. He further submitted that the Revenue Authorities are not the
competent authority to decide the title over the property. The petitioner
made out the prima facie case for issuance of patta in her favour by
producing the settlement deed in her favour by her husband. When the 5th
respondent failed to produce any documents to show that they have title
over the property, they simply produced the approved lay out as if the
subject property was laid out for common purpose such as play ground etc.
11. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the Judgment reported in 2011(5) CTC 94 Vishwas Footwear
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
Company Ltd., A-2 Third Phase, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai - 600
032, rep. by Director V.Ravi -vs- 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram. 3.The Tahsildar,
Sriperumbudur. 4.E.Kumar. 5.K.Anbalagan is extracted below:
"15. Following the said judgment, one of us
(DMJ) in Chockkappans case has held that the
Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to
go into the disputed questions of title at the time
when an application for cancellation of patta is
being considered. As far as this law is concerned,
there cannot be a second opinion as to the limited
jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer only
to find out prima facie as to the title and when the
title is in dispute and there are rival claimants, he
should refer the parties to civil Court for
adjudication and depending upon the decree that
may be passed by the civil Court, relevant entries
in the patta could be effected by the Revenue
Divisional Officer.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
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 cannot go into
the civil dispute, his order cancelling the patta by
deciding the disputed question of title is without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
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 authority. In the event
the Revenue Divisional Officer by exceeding his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
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,
ultimately decided that the land belongs to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
appellant company and for further direction for
grant of patta in favour of the said Alamelu
Ammal. With these observations and directions, the
writ appeal is allowed. No costs."
12. The 5th respondent filed a counter and submitted that the
petitioner is a rank predecessor into the property and it is meant for his
children's play area. The 5th respondent being the local body is duty bound
to maintain the park and play fields falling under its jurisdiction as per the
Tamil Nadu Park and Play Fields Act as well as the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. As per the lay out sanctioned by the
D.T.C.P.No.121 of 1975 the lands comprised in S.F.No.127 part have been
earmarked as a children play area and the same as also been entered in the
survey records and town survey register.
13. Accordingly, the lands are now in T.S.No.71, Ward-B, Block 29,
Tambaram Town corresponding to Old S.F.No.127 part to an extent of 606
sq.mts. meant for children's play area. The petitioner's husband without any
title over the subject property has simply executed settlement deed to create
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
title over the property in favour of the petitioner. Unfortunately, without
verifying the records the Tahsildar issued patta in favour of the petitioner.
therefore, the 5th respondent filed an appeal and the third respondent rightly
allowed the same.
14. Though the land is left out for common purpose, it was not gifted
in favour of the 5th respondent. However, when the land was left out for
common purpose such as play ground etc, it cannot be sold out or the person
who occupied the said portion can be treated as encroacher.
15. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the
members of the 6th respondent having purchased the house plots in the lay
out put up by one V.M.Natarajan in the year 1975, in which the subject
property was left out for children's play area and it was clearly marked out.
Therefore, the same has to be maintained for the benefit of residents of the
said lay out for common purpose and no single person has any exclusive
right over the same. The members of the 6th respondent are being the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
residents under the lay out has to maintain with the help of the 5th
respondent as children's play area.
16. She further submitted that the 6th respondent already filed the suit
as against the petitioner's husband for bare injunction. Though it was
dismissed, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the suit and granted
leave to file a fresh suit for declaration and recovery of possession. When
the subject property has been left out for common purpose in the lay out, it
belongs to the 5th respondent and to be maintained by them. Therefore, the
6th respondent ought not to have filed any suit for declaration and as such
the 5th respondent did not file any suit. When the petitioner's husband
claimed title over the property and executed settlement deed in favour of the
petitioner, the petitioner has to file the suit for title. Therefore, the Revenue
Authorities rightly cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner
herein.
17. On perusal of the lay out plan produced by the 5th and 6th
respondents revealed that the subject property was left out for children's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
playing area namely common purpose. Therefore, the common area left out
in the lay out has to be maintained for the benefit of the residents of lay out
in common and no single person has any exclusive right over the same.
Though no gift deed was executed by the original owner namely
V.M.Natarajan while approving the lay out in the year 1975, it is clearly
marked as children's play area and accordingly, the Revenue Records also
mutated as Sri Subramanian Rail Nagar House Plot Revision registered as
play ground.
18. That apart, on perusal of the settlement deed executed in favour of
the petitioner by her husband and its recitals revealed as follows:
@ 2 0 0 8 ? k ; M z ; L khh; r ; khjk; 14 ? k ; ehs;. brd ;i d
60 0 04 5. flg; n g h p . uapy ; efh;. K: d ; w h t J F W f ; F bj U .
gi H a vz;/4. g[jp a vz;/22 ? v d ; w Kfth p a p y ; trpf; F k ;
jp U/ S/ghyfp U & ; z d ; mth;f s p d ; kidtp Rkh h ; 40 taJs; s
jp U k j p/ B/rush M f p a j';fSf ; F :?
brd;i d 60 0 04 5. flg;n g h p . uapy ; efh;. K: d ; w h t J
F W f ; F bj U . gi H a vz;/4. g[jp a vz;/22 ? v d ; w Kfth p a p y ;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
trpf; F k ; fhy";b r d ; w _dpthr Y eha [ L mth;fs p d ; Fkh u h ;
Rkh h ; 62 taJs; s jp U/ S/ghyfp U & ; z d ; Mfpa ehd;
kdg; g [ { h ; t k h a ; rk;kjpj ; J fP H ; f z ; l rhl;r p f s p d ;
Kd;dpiyapy; v G j p itf ; F k ; brl; o y ; b k z ; L M t zk ;
vd;d bt d ; w h y ; .
fh";rp g [ u k ; khtl;lk;. jhk; g u k ; tl;lk;. jhk; g uk ;
efuhl ; r p vy;iyf ; F l ; g l ; l gi H a be/16 5. gi H a be/26.
flg; n g h p fpuhkj; j p y ; . rh;nt vz;/12 6 kw; W k ; 12 7
g F j p a p y ; ml';fp a kid vz;fs ;/ I, II, III kw; W k ; IV?cs ; s
tp!;j P u z k ; 63 8 0 rJu mo kidah d J nkw; g o vdf; F g[{h ;t P f
brhe ; jk h d J k ; . vd; D i l a brhe ; j mDgtpj;jpYk;
Rthj P d j ; j p Y k ; itj;J M z ; L m D g t p j ; J te;J. mjpy ; tP L fl;o.
kpd; ,izg; g [ bg w ; W . ,Jehs ; tiu ve;jtpjkh d
tpy;y';fj; j p w ; F k ; cl;g L j ; j h k y ; rh;f ;f h h p y ; Vw ; g L k ; thp
tifaw h f ; f i s ,d; W njjptiu ghf;f p ,y;yhky ; brYj ;j p f ; bfhz; L
Mz; L mDgtpj;J tUf p w moa p w ; f z ; l brhj; J tptuj;j p y ;
tpthpj ;j brhj; ij nkw ; g o jp U k j p/r u s h M f p a eP vd; D i l a
kidtp M d g o a h Y k ; ehd; cd; kPJ bfhz; L s ; s md; g p d h Y k ;
ghrj ;j p d h Y k ; cdf; F ehd ; Xh; brhj ; J M j u t [ njo itf;f
ntz; L k ; vd; w vz;zj;j p d h Y k ; moa p w ; f z ; l brhj; J 4
tptuj;j p y ; tpthpj ; J s ; s brhj ;ij ,d;n w j';fSf; F ,e;j
brl; o y ; b k z ; L M t zk ; K: yk ; v G j p itj;J tpl;nl d ;/ @
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
19. According to her husband he derived title over the subject
property by his long possession and enjoyment and ancestral one. Except
this recital there is no other documents shown to derive his title. However,
on the strength of the settlement deed the 4th respondent issued patta.
Therefore, the 5th respondent objected to the same and filed an appeal and
the same was allowed the order of issuance of patta was set aside. If at all,
the petitioner wants to sustain the patta issued in her favour, she has to
prove her title in respect of the subject property in the manner known to
law.
20. Therefore, the Judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is not helpful to the case on hand and this writ petition is disposed
of with the following directions:
(i) The petitioner is at liberty to file a suit for declaration in respect of
her title over the property.
(ii) If any suit filed by the petitioner, the Civil Court is directed to
dispose the suit on merits in accordance with law without influence of any
findings rendered by the Revenue Authorities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
(iii) If the petitioner succeeds in the Civil Suit, she can approach the
Authority concerned for issuance of patta and on receipt of the said request
the Authorities concerned are directed to pass orders on the basis of the
decree obtained by the petitioner.
(iv) Till the disposal of the said suit, the possession of the petitioner
shall not be disturbed by the respondents herein.
(v) If the petitioner failed to succeed in the suit it is open to the
respondents to take appropriate action as against the petitioner to remove
her encroachment, if any, with due process of law.
(vi) No order as to costs.
(vii) Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
01.09.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
rna
To
1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram.
4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tambaram.
5.The Commissioner,
Tambaram Municipality,
Tambaram.
6.Sri Subramanian Rail Nagar
Residents Welfare Association,
Represented by its President,
Mrs.Vrindha Kumari,
No.28/26, Sri Subramanian Rail Nagar,
Kadaperi, Tambaram,
Chennai - 600 045.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
rna
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19682 of 2011
and M.P.Nos.1,2 of 2011, 1 of 2012
01.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
