Madras High Court
Krishnappa vs The District Revenue Officer on 28 April, 2022
W.P.No.11002 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
W.P. No.11002 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.10590 & 10591 of 2022
1. Krishnappa
2. Sampangiappa
3. Venkatesappa
4. Nagarajappa ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hosur.
3. The Tahsildar,
Hosur.
4. Chandrappa ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
2nd respondent herein dated 15.03.2022 bearing PA.MU.No.562/2022/B3 and
quash the same consequently directing the 3rd respondent to restore the
names of the petitioners in the Patta No.168.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Venkatasubban
For Respondents R1 to R3 : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan,
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDER
W.P.No.11002 of 2022
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent herein
dated 15.03.2022 bearing PA.MU.No.562/2022/B3 and quash the same
consequently directing the 3rd respondent to restore the names of the
petitioners in the Patta No.168.
2. Since no adverse order is being passed as against the fourth
respondent, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the properties in
S.F.Nos.43/10, 39/4, 39/17 & 96/3 situated in Allor Village and in
S.F.Nos.14/10C & 19/1B situated in Pooram Village were jointly owned by
the grandfather of the petitioners and one Venkataramanaapa and Patta for
the said lands was mutated in their names based on oral partition. After the
demise of the petitioner's grandfather, the petitioners' father was managing
the said properties. Thereafter, after the demise of the petitioner's father, the
petitioners were maintaining the properties. While so, the fourth respondent,
who is one of the legal heir of the said Venkataramanaappa, had cut the trees
planted by the grandfather of the petitioners in S.F.No.43/10. Therefore, the
petitioners issued legal notice for compensation for the illegal act of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11002 of 2022
fourth respondent.
4. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the said Venkataramanaappa filed a
suit in O.S.No.322 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosur, seeking for
partition of the properties of the petitioner's grandfather and the same was
dismissed on 27.07.2005. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs therein
preferred an appeal in A.S.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District
Court, Krishnagiri and the same was decreed in their favour vide order dated
23.07.2013. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred second appeal in
S.A.No.1228 of 2013 before this Court and the same was allowed in their
favour vide order dated 29.01.2020.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of the said
Venkataramanappa preferred Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.9147 of 2021
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on
09.08.2021, confirming the order dated 29.01.2020 of this Court. Further, the
legal heirs of the said Venkataramanappa approached the respondents 2 and
3 herein for mutation of Patta with respect to properties in S.F.Nos.43/10 &
39/4 in their names vide representation dated 03.09.2021. The second
respondent, without providing an opportunity to the petitioeners for
producing the documents, had mutated the revenue records and issued Patta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11002 of 2022
in favour of the fourth respondent and his brothers with respect to the said
properties, pursuant to which, the impugned order dated 15.03.2022 was
passed by the second respondent. Challenging the same, the present Writ
Petition has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
disputed property is a joint family property and that without providing any
opportunity to the petitioners to produce the documents pertaining to the
orders of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the second respondent
had mutated the revenue records. It is the further submission of the
petitioners counsel that being an Appellate Authority, the second respondent
has no power to grant Patta under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Patta
Passbook Act, 1983 and the same is not sustainable. Hence, he prays for
allowing the Writ Petition.
7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the grievance of the petitioners against the
order of the second respondent can be adjudicated before the Revisional
Authority by filing Revision Application. However, the petitioners without
approaching the Revisional Authority, have approached this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not sustainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11002 of 2022
8. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for either side.
9. From a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen
that the fourth respondent made an application before the second respondent
for mutation of Patta with respect to properties in S.F.No.43/10 & 39/4 in his
name and other legal heirs, based on the judgment of the Additional District
Court, Krishnagiri, which ended in his favour. Thereby, the second
respondent issued Patta for the aforesaid disputed properties in the name of
the fourth respondent and his brothers. However, the grievance of the
petitioners is that being the Appellate Authority, Patta cannot be granted for
the disputed properties as per the provisions of the Patta Passbook Act and
the said order is not sustainable. However, it is to be pointed out that remedy
of revision is available to the petitioners and without exhausting the same,
the petitioners have come before this Court.
10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that
the petitioners, without approaching the Revisional Authority under Section
13 of the Patta Passbook Act have approached this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, which is not sustainable. The grievance of the
petitioners can be very well ventilated before the Revisional Authority under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11002 of 2022
Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act.
11. Therefore, this Court, without interfering with order impugned
and also without expressing any opinion on merits, permits the petitioners to
file Revisional Application before the first respondent under Section 13 of
the Patta Passbook Act within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. If such application is filed, the first respondent is
directed to pass orders in accordance with law on the said application within
a period of twelve weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners as well as the fourth respondent.
12. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition
is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
28.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes/ No
GLN
Note to Office: Issue Order Copy on 20.05.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11002 of 2022
To
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hosur.
3. The Tahsildar,
Hosur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11002 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN
W.P. No.11002 of 2022
28.04.2022
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
