Madras High Court

R.Gnanasoundari vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 2022

                                                                          W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 11.04.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

                                           W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011 and
                                             MP(MD) No.2 of 2011

                     1.R.Gnanasoundari
                     2.R.Sekar
                     3.R.Anbalagan
                     4.Murali
                     5.R.Senthamil Selvi
                     Petitioners 1 to 5 are represented by
                     their power of Attorney
                     T.Krishnan                                           ...Petitioners

                                                       Vs.
                     1.The District Revenue Officer,
                       Tirunelveli.

                     2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                       Tirunelveli.

                     3.The Tahsildar,
                       Tirunelveli.

                     4.Selva Gomathi Kumar
                     5.Tmt.Santhi Rani                                   ...Respondents

                     PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
                     calling for the records to the impugned order dated 13.10.2010, issued by
                     the first respondent in Revision Petition No.Ka.2/7/09 and quash the

                     1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011


                     same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the order dated
                     06.07.2009 passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/Me.Moo.
                     8/08.
                                  For Petitioner          : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
                                  For R1 to R3            : Mr.A.Baskaran
                                                            Additional Government Pleader

                                                        ORDER

This writ petition is filed as against the order passed by the

District Revenue Officer, reversing the order of the Revenue Divisional

Officer in cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioners.

2.The case of the petitioners is that they are the legal

representatives of one Raju and the said Raju has purchased the property

to an extent of 11 acres and 5 cents in Survey Nos.848/1, 861 and 862,

Sathiram Pudukulam Village, Tirunelveli Taluk, from one

Sankaralingam, the power holder of one Bagavathiammal. The land was

originally belonged to one Chidambarathammal and she executed a

settlement deed in favour of her daughter Bagavathiammal.

Bagavathiammal gave a power deed in favour of her brother and son-in-

law Sankaralingam and through the power deed, the petitioner's father

purchased the property from Sankaralingam on 23.03.1998. While so, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011

said Bagavathiammal created a sale agreement with the help of her

brother one Arumugam and filed a collusive suit before the District

Munsif Court, Tirunelveli in O.S.No.187 of 2000 and also obtained a

decree. The said Arumugam has also filed another suit for specific

performance in O.S.No.205 of 2000 before the Subordinate Court,

Tirunelveli and obtained a decree on 08.10.2000. On knowing that, the

petitioner's father, namely, Raju filed a suit before the Subordinate Court,

Tirunelveli in O.S.No.281 of 2001 against Bagavathiammal and

Arumugam, for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The

suit was renumbered as O.S.No.535 of 2004, before the District Munsif

Court, Tirunelveli and decreed in favour of the petitioner's father Raju,

on 07.09.2004. Pending the suit in O.S.No.535 of 2004, Arumugam sold

the property in favour of one Balasubramanian, the father of the

respondents 4 & 5. Bagavathiammal has also filed an appeal as against

the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2004 made in O.S.No.535 of 2004

before the Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli in A.S.No.322 of 2005 and the

same was dismissed by judgment dated 20.03.2006. Pending the appeal,

the legal heirs of Balasubramanian mutated the revenue records and

therefore, the petitioner's father filed an appeal before the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli and the Revenue Divisional Officer

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011

restored the patta in favour of the petitioner. However, on the revision

filed by the respondents, the revisional authority has erroneously passed

the order in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved over the same, the

present writ petition is filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits

that the father of the petitioners had filed O.S.No.281 of 2001, claiming

right and title over the subject property and the same was decreed on

07.09.2004, after renumbered as O.S.No.281 of 2001 and the appeal in

A.S.No.322 of 2005 filed as against the judgment and decree was

dismissed by the judgment dated 20.03.2006. While so, during the

pendency of the suit proceedings, the second defendant Arumugam sold

the subject property in favour of Balasubramanian and his wife

Seethalakshmi, who are the parents of the private respondents, on

05.12.2002. Since the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners' father

and appeal filed as against the judgment and decree was also dismissed,

the sale effected by the said Arumugam is not valid.

4.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth

respondent, wherein, it has been stated that the land measuring 12 acres

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011

and 5 cents in Survey Nos.848/1, 861 and 862 in Sathirampudhukulam

Village, Tirunelveli Taluk originally belonged to one

Chidambarathammal, who is none other than the great grand mother of

the fourth respondent. The said Chidambarathammal settled the same in

faovur of her daughter one Bhagavathiammal, who is the paternal grand

mother of the respondents 4 & 5 on 26.05.1967. According to the private

respondents, no Power of Attorney has been executed by the said

Bhagavathiammal in favour of Sankaralingam. The alleged Power of

Attorney said to have been executed by the said Bhagavathiammal in

favour of Sankaralingam is a forged one and hence, the sale effected by

the said Sankaralingam in favour of the father of the petitioners, namely,

Raju is not a valid one.

5.According to the fourth respondent, the said

Bhagavathiammal entered into a sale agreement, in respect of the subject

property in favour of one Arumugam, who is the another brother of

Bhagavathiammal. After entering into the agreement, since

Bhagavathiammal intended to sell the same property to some others, her

brother Arumugam filed a civil suit in O.S.No.187 of 2000, before the

District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, seeking an injunction. He also filed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011

another suit in O.S.No.205 of 2000, seeking specific performance before

the Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli and the same was decreed on

08.10.2000.Thereafter, the said Arumugam sold the property to the

parents of the respondents 4 & 5, vide sale deed, dated 05.12.2002 and

after their death, the respondents 4 & 5 inherited the property. It is also

stated that since their parents purchased the property from a lawful

owner, who was having a valid title and conveyable interest, the

impugned order of the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli is liable to

be dismissed.

6.This Court considered the rival submissions made on

either side and perused the materials placed on record.

7. At this juncture, this Court wants to emphasize the

significance of the Patta Pass Book Scheme, which was introduced in

order to ensure that all the pattadars that of the land owners get a patta

pass book with the details of their holdings of land. For providing legal

status to the Patta Pass Book, the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983,

was enacted, authorizing the patta pass book for grant of loan from the

financial institutions and credit agencies.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011

8. Under Section 5(1) of the Patta Pass Book Act, no

document relating to transfer of any land by sale, gift, mortgage,

exchange, settlement or otherwise shall be registered by the Registering

Authority, unless the patta pass book relating to such land is produced

before such Registering Authority.

9.The Tahsildar, having jurisdiction over the area in which

the land is situated, is the authority to issue a patta pass book to every

land owner in respect of his land. Every owner of the agricultural land

shall apply for a patta pass book under the Act in a prescribed format

under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book

Act. The Tahsildar, on the information obtained by him, by following the

procedures as contemplated in the Act and after providing reasonable

opportunity to the persons having interest in the land to make their

representations either orally or in writing, shall determine as to whom the

patta pass book is to be issued.

10. In the event of the Tahsildar being satisfied that a

dispute concerning ownership of patta is already pending in a Court or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011

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 as per Rule

4 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987.

11. The proviso to Section 14 reads as follows:

“14. Bar of suits – No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass book that is maintained under this Act or to have any such entry omitted or amended:

Provided 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, for a declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the patta pass book shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration”.

12. Considering the provision under Section 14 of the Patta

Pass Book Act 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rule 1987, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011

Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s.Edelweiss Asset Construction Company

Limited vs. R.Perumalsamy and others, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3688,

set aside an order passed by a District Revenue Officer under the Patta

Pass Book Act and held as follows:

“19. Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987, the Tahsildar is not empowered to adjudicate upon a 'title dispute'. A combined reading of Section 14 and Rule 4(4) indicates that where there exists a dispute with respect to ownership of a land between parties with respect to a patta entry, the correct procedure to be adopted is to approach a civil Court having competent jurisdiction. The entry records will be updated on the basis of the decree of the civil court upon adjudication.

13. As per Section 10(1) of the Patta Pass Book Act, a

person can claim for a modification of patta only under three

circumstances,

1. by reason of the death of any person; or

2. by reason of the transfer of interest in the land; or

3. by reason of any other subsequent change in circumstances.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011

14. As per Section 10(3)(a) of the Act, the Tahsildar shall

provide a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their

representation either orally or in writing.

15. For obtaining such patta, an Applicant has to prima facie

satisfy with the documents for any other information relating to the land

to the Tahsildar for his determination and on such determination, the

Tahsildar not only makes necessary entries in respect of the land

concerned in the Register of Patta Pass Book maintained in the office of

the Tahsildar, but also for the purpose of issuing Patta Pass Book to the

owner or the person concerned. The 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.

16. A Division Bench of this Court, in T.R.Dinakaran vs.

the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai and others reported in

2001 (3) CTC 823 held as follows:

“19. In view of the proviso to Section 14, if any person is aggrieved over the entry made in the patta pass book in respect of any property over which

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011

he claims title and also possession, he can only file a suit for declaration of his right and thereafter, the entry in the patta pass book can be amended in accordance with any such declaration made by the competent civil court. ........

........

By Section 5, in the event any modification is required on an application by any person, it can be made either by reason of the death of any person or by reason of transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any subsequent change in the circumstances. This section also does not empower the Tahsildar to cancel the patta already granted, as the power of the Tahsildar to modify the entries in the patta pass book is limited only in case of death of the person who was holding the patta pass book or by reason of the transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any other subsequent change in the circumstances. In the event an application is made that the patta pass book has been wrongly issued in favour of any person and consequently, claiming title over the land entitling such person to grant of patta, that person can only file a suit for declaration that the entries made in the patta pass book should be cancelled and consequently for a mandatory injunction for grant of patta.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011

17. Another Division Bench of this Court in Kuppuswami

Nainar vs. the District Revenue Officer and others, reported in 1995 (1)

MLJ 426 held as follows:

“3. No provision is brought to our notice in the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue taking away the jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate upon the question of title relating to immovable property. Revenue Officers in a patta proceedings may express their views on the question of title, but such expression of opinion or decision is not conclusive and it is only intended to support their decision for granting patta. Ultimately, it is the civil court which has to adjudicate the question as to whether the person claiming patta is the title-holder of the land. Even if the revenue authorities decide the question of title, that will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the civil court, which has to decide the question without reference to the decision of the revenue authorities.

4. Now the question for consideration is, having regard to the fact that the District Revenue Officer has expressed his opinion on the question of title whether the order under question should be interfered with. It may be pointed out here that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the question of title regarding immovable property cannot properly be gone into, because a mass of evidence may be required for adjudicating the question of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011

title. Even if we are to interfere with the order under appeal, it is the other party, who has to go to a civil court and establish title. As far as the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned, it does not matter to it whether 'A' party goes to civil court or 'B' party. Therefore, we are of the view that the question of title has to be decided by the civil court, without reference to the order under question. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order challenged in the writ petition. However, we make it clear that in the event a suit for declaration of title and for appropriate consequential relief is filed, the civil court shall decide such a suit, without reference to the findings recorded by respondents 1 and 2 in the impugned orders, but only on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them before it. We also make it clear that any opinion expressed by the learned single Judge, contrary to what we have stated above, shall also stand modified accordingly. With these observations, the writ appeal is dismissed.”

18.The Patta Pass Book Act provides a right of appeal under

Section 12 of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer and a

revision under Section 13 of the Act before the District Revenue Officer.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.521 of 2011

19. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, cannot go into the title of the parties and the same can be decided

only by adducing evidence before the appropriate Civil Court and any

opinion by this Court on the documents relied on by the parties would

prejudice the interest of the parties before the Civil Court. In this case,

since the petitioners obtained a decree in O.S.No.281 of 2001, which was

also confirmed in A.S.No.322 of 2005, dated 20.03.2006 by the

competent civil Court and as of now, no appeal has been preferred by the