Madras High Court
Deivanayagam Chettiar vs The District Collector on 16 December, 2022
W.P(MD)No.16776 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.12.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P(MD)No.16776 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014
Deivanayagam Chettiar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tenkasi,Tirunelveli District.
3.The Deputy Tahsildar,
Veerakeralampudur,
Tirunelveli District.
4.Selvaraj ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
call for records in the Impugned Order passed by the 2 nd respondent in
Na.Ka.No.A4/5199/2009 dated 19.01.2010 and quash the same and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent to expedite the proceeding in
A4-10146/2013 dated 12.07.2014.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16776 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu
For R1 - R3 : M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.M.Saravanan
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order
passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 19.10.2010 made in
Na.Ka.No.A4/5199/09.
2. By the impugned order, the Revenue Divisional Officer had set
aside the order of the Deputy Tahsildar, wherein the Deputy Tahsildar
had deleted the name of one Sorimuthu in Patta No.1272 and directed
grant of patta in the name of Deivanayagam Chettiar, who is the
petitioner herein. By the said order, the 2nd respondent had directed
restoration of the name of the said Sorimuthu in Patta No.1272.
Thereafter, the 4th respondent herein, had sought for grant of patta in his
name in respect of the lands that were subject matter of the impugned
order. The 2nd respondent had rejected the said request of the 4th
respondent. Again, by a notice, dated 12.07.2014, the 2nd respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16776 of 2014
seems to have entertained the request to correct the errors that were crept
in the revenue records in respect of Survey Nos.258/1 and 258/2.
3. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made on either
side.
4. From the various proceedings, it is crystal clear that there is a
dispute of title of the lands in Survey Nos.258/1 and 258/2 in Surandai
Part-I Village. Rule 4 (4) of the Patta Passbook rules mandates that the
revenue authorities cannot decide a dispute between parties as regards to
the title and apart from also entering into questions of personal law or
succession law. Only when the parties agree in writing as to the
ownership of a property, the revenue authorities can proceed to grant
patta. This position has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
judgment reported in 2021 (11) SCC 98 (Edelweiss Asset Construction
Company Limited Vs. R.Perumalsamy & Others).
5. In view of the same, without interfering with the orders passed
by the Revenue Divisional Officer, I relegate the parties to initiate
appropriate civil proceedings to redress their grievances. As stated supra,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16776 of 2014
the Revenue Divisional Officer or any other revenue authorities have no
authority/jurisdiction to decide the title to the property. In that aspect, the
notice, dated 12.07.2014 is set aside.
6. In view of the aforesaid findings, this writ petition is disposed
of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil
Court for redressing his grievances. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
16.12.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tenkasi,Tirunelveli District.
3.The Deputy Tahsildar,
Veerakeralampudur,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16776 of 2014
K.KUMARESH BABU,J.
gbg
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.16776 of 2014
Dated:
16.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
