Madras High Court
T.John Anbalagan vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 December, 2022
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
T.John Anbalagan ... Appellant
vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sattur,
Virdhunagar District.
4.T.John Yabase ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against
the dismissal order dated 03.08.2011, passed in W.P.(MD)No.8625 of 2011.
For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.D.Sasikumar
Additional Government Pleader
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2011
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
to quash the order passed by the first respondent, dated 09.02.2011, dismissed by
the learned Single Judge on the ground of alternate remedy. The appellant being
aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge is before this Court by way of
intra court appeal.
2. The short facts of the case is that under UDR Scheme, patta was issued
in the name of the appellant herein, for a piece of land, bearing S.No.225/9,
measuring an extent of 2315 sq.mt. situated at Elayirampannai Village, Sattur
Taluk, Virudhunagar District. However, his brother, namely, the fourth
respondent herein gave a representation to the third respondent Tahsildar stating
that the said land belongs to his father namely, Thomas Nadar and during his
lifetime, his father Thomas Nadar has gifted the property to him and his wife
namely, Ponmalar, by an unregistered gift deed, dated 08.11.1989. In the said
place, he is running a Match Industry in the name and style of Tamil Nadu Match
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2011
Industries. While so, by taking advantage of the erroneous entry in the UDR and
the Patta issued in his name, the appellant herein is trying to interfere with his
possession.
2.1. The Tahsildar after causing notice to both the parties, had conducted an
enquiry and held that except the UDR Patta issued in the name of the appellant,
he has not produced any other document prior to issuance of UDR Patta, to show
that he is the owner of the property while the tax receipts are in the name of his
father Thomas Nadar, which indicate that the Natham property has been in
occupation and enjoyment of Thomas Nadar. The patta given exclusively to the
appellant is incorrect and given without proper enquiry. Therefore, in the light of
the unregistered gift deed, the fourth respondent is entitled to get patta.
Accordingly, patta was transferred in the name of the fourth respondent.
2.2. This order of granting patta to the fourth respondent was challenged
before the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, by way of
Statutory Appeal. In the Appeal, the Appellate Authority considered the order
passed by the Tahsildar, dated 26.06.2009, and taking note of the criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2011
complaint pending, confirmed the order of the Tahsildar, since the appellant is not
able to substantiate his right and title over the property to sustain the issuance of
patta in his name.
2.3. The Revision Petition filed before the first respondent/District
Revenue Officer also negatived, vide impugned order, dated 09.02.2011, wherein
the Revisional Authority has held that the title dispute to be settled through the
competent Civil Court. The appellant was advised to resort the remedy before the
competent Civil Court.
2.4. This order was challenged by the appellant by way of Writ Petition.
The learned Single Judge after considering the dispute between the brothers over
a piece of land, where the right and title of the property is attempted to be
established through patta, he referring Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass
Book Act, 1983, directed the appellant to work out his remedy before the Civil
Court.
3. Not being satisfied with the said direction, the present Writ Appeal is
filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2011
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that while the
appellant has been holding the patta for more than 20 years, the cancellation of
the patta by the Tahsildar, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority
Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revisional Authority District Revenue
Officer, is erroneous and beyond the power and scope of the authorities.
5. The respondents 1 to 3 being carried away by the unregistered document
called gift deed, unmindful of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and
the Registration Act, 1908, which requires any transfer of immovable property
more than Rs.100/- registration and duly stamped in accordance to the value.
Therefore, when the patta which stands in the name of the appellant being
arbitrarily cancelled and issued in the name of the fourth respondent, requires
interference and Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked for efficacious
remedmy.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 would submit that undoubtedly, the property belongs to
Thomas Nadar and his two sons are under loggerheads claiming right over it. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2011
appellant took advantage of the patta issued exclusively in his name during the
UDR survey and the fourth respondent has projected the gift deed as unregistered
gift deed, alleged to have been executed by Thomas Nadar. Pointing out the fact
that the Tax Receipts for the land being assessed in the name of Thomas Nadar
and the taxes were paid by the fourth respondent and also the spot inspection by
the Tahsildar revealed that the property is in occupation of the fourth respondent,
it is contended that if there is any dispute regarding the title as pointed out by the
learned Single Judge and any dispute over the title and grievance regarding
issuance of patta as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge under Section
14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, the parties concerned after
exploring the statutory remedy available under the Act, has to approach the
competent Civil Court to prove their possession as well as the title and seek for
appropriate declaration. The Writ proceedings is not an efficacious or proper
remedy.
7. This Court, after considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and on perusing the records, finds that when
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2011
there is no evidence laid before the Revenue Authority by the appellant to show
that he had title and was in possession even prior to the UDR survey and issuance
of patta in his name during the UDR survey. Hence, the Revenue Authority has
rightly directed the appellant to approach the competent Civil Court to establish
his title over the property. Insofar as the title is concerned, it is a disputed fact
and the spot inspection made by the Revenue Authorities is in favour of the fourth
respondent and this is a matter to be tested by a competent Civil Court. High
Court by exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot decide the matter without recording and appreciating the evidence.
8. Hence, the appellant is directed to approach the Civil Court to work out
his remedy as directed by the learned Single Judge. This Court finds no error in
the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in the Writ Petition. Hence, this
Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellant
is in possession of the property and his possession should not be disturbed taking
advantage of dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2011
10. If the possession of the property is with the appellant, then the status
quo as on today shall be maintained till the appellant resort to Civil Court. In any
event, such an exercise shall be undertaken by the appellant within a period of 90
days from today. It is made clear that the status quo as on today shall be in force
only for a period of 90 days from today.
Index : Yes / No [G.J., J.] [S.M., J.]
Internet : Yes 08.12.2022
smn2
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sattur,
Virdhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2011
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
SUNDER MOAHN, J.
smn2
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2011
DATED : 08.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
