Madras High Court

Karuppayee vs The District Revenue Officer on 19 April, 2022

                                                                     W.P.(MD)No.626 of 2009


                         BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 19.04.2022

                                                   CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

                                            W.P.(MD)No.626 of 2009

                     1. Karuppayee
                     2. Lakshmi
                     3. Muthanan
                     Petitioners are represented
                     through their Power Agent
                     K.Baluchami                                     ... Petitioners

                                                        versus

                     1. The District Revenue Officer,
                        Sivaganga District,
                        Sivaganga.

                     2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                        Sivaganga District,
                        Sivaganga.

                     3. The Tahsildar,
                        Settlement Officer,
                        Patta Pass Book Settlement Office No.4,
                        Sivaganga.

                     4. M.Vellaichami (died)


                     1/11


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   W.P.(MD)No.626 of 2009


                     5. Kalanchiyam @ Karuppayee

                     6. Lakshmi

                     7. Ayyavu

                     8. Pandi

                     9. Sonai

                     10. Murugesan @ Murugan

                     11. Rajalakshmi @ Rajeswari

                     12. Pappa

                     13. Panchavarnam
                     (R5 to R13 are impleaded vide
                     order dated 19.04.2022 in
                     W.M.P.(MD)No.7691 of 2019)                                   ... Respondents

                                  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
                     the order of the first respondent in Pa.Mu.B1/14457/2005 dated
                     22.10.2007 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in Mu.Mu.(B1)
                     1242/2000 dated 10.03.2005 and quash the same.


                                        For Petitioners   : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
                                        For R1 to R3      : Mr.A.Baskaran,
                                                            Additional Government Pleader
                                        For R5 to R13     : Mr.C.M.Arumugam
                     2/11


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      W.P.(MD)No.626 of 2009



                                                                ORDER

This writ petition is filed as against the order dated 22.10.2007

passed by the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, on

the revision petition filed by the petitioners. The first

respondent/District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, by the order

impugned in this writ petition, confirmed the order of the Revenue

Divisional Officer, cancelling the patta, which was granted in favour of

the petitioners and passed an order restoring the patta in the name of

the fourth respondent.

2. The leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fourth

respondent's father one Mu.Muthiah, by taking advantage of the

similarity in the name of one Pesa Muthiah, who is the predecessors of

the petitioners, obtained patta during UDR Scheme. Since the

petitioners agitated the same, the fourth respondent filed a suit in

O.S.No.102 of 1987, before the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai,

seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The trial Court, after

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.626 of 2009

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit, by

Judgment and Decree dated 07.02.1991. Aggrieved over the same, the

fourth respondent filed an appeal in A.S.No.1 of 1994 before the Sub

Court, Sivagangai, which was also dismissed by Judgment and Decree

dated 28.09.1994. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for change of

patta to the Tahsildar as well as before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

The Tahsildar, Sivagangai Taluk, passed an order to issue patta in the

name of the petitioners. But, the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Sivagangai, set aside the order stating that when the application for

change of patta was pending before him, the petitioners, by suppressing

the same, obtained patta from the Tahsildar. Aggrieved over the same,

the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the first

respondent/District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai. The District

Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, passed an order confirming the order of

the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai and restored the patta in

favour of the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present

writ petition has been filed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.626 of 2009

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fourth

respondent's father, by taking advantage of the similarity of name,

obtained patta in his name, during UDR Scheme, when the property

was originally belonged to one Pesa Muthiah. He further submits that

when the fourth respondent lost his case before the competent Civil

Courts, the revenue authorities are not supposed to substitute the order

of the Civil Courts by granting patta in the name of the fourth

respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 13

submits that it is true that the fourth respondent (now deceased) filed a

suit in O.S.No. 102 of 1987, before the District Munsif Court,

Sivagangai, for declaration and injunction with regard to the suit

property, however, he lost the suit. The Revenue Divisional Officer and

District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, by considering the revenue

records and the settlement register, passed the order in favour of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.626 of 2009

fourth respondent. He further submits that the petitioners are strangers

and they are no way connected with the suit property. Though the

fourth respondent lost his case before the competent Civil Courts, the

petitioners cannot take advantage of the dismissal Judgment of the

Civil Suit and Appeal that the fourth respondent is not entitled for patta

and it does not mean that the suit property is belonging to the

defendants/petitioners.

5. This Court considered the rival submissions made.

6. Admittedly, the first respondent/District Revenue Officer,

Sivagangai, by the order impugned in this writ petition, confirmed the

order of the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer,

Sivagangai. The second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer,

Sivagangai, cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioners and

restored the patta in the name of fourth respondent. The fourth

respondent already filed a suit in O.S.No.102 of 1987 before the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.626 of 2009

District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, for declaration and injunction, and

the same was dismissed by Judgment and Decree dated 07.02.1991.

The appeal filed by the fourth respondent in A.S.No.1 of 1994 was also

dismissed by the Appellate Court, vide Judgment and Decree dated

28.09.1994. In such circumstances, on the application filed by the

petitioners, the Tahsildar granted patta in favour of the writ petitioners,

but the same was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer and

District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai. In Civil Law, when there is a

dispute between the rival parties upon the title to the property, the

competent forum would be only the Civil Court.

7. A Division Bench of this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar vs.

the District Revenue Officer and others, reported in 1995 (1) MLJ

426 also 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.626 of 2009

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 title. Even if we are to interfere with the order under appeal, it is the other party, who has to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.626 of 2009

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.”

8. In view of the above, the orders of the second

respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, dated 10.03.2005

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.626 of 2009

and the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, dated

22.10.2007 shall be kept in abeyance. The parties are at liberty to work

out their remedy before the competent Civil Court by establishing their

right before the Civil Court.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

19.04.2022 ogy Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. To

1. The District Revenue Officer, Sivaganga District, Sivaganga.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivaganga District, Sivaganga.

3. The Tahsildar, Settlement Officer, Patta Pass Book Settlement Office No.4, Sivaganga.