Madras High Court
Poongodhai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 18 October, 2022
W.P(MD)No.8184 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.8184 of 2013
and
M.P(MD)Nos.2 & 3 of 2013
1.Poongodhai
2.Manimaran ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Musiri Division,
Trichy.
2.The Tahsildar,
Thuraiyur Taluk,
Trichy District.
3.A.Subbiah Pillai
4.A.Subramanian ... Respondents
(R4 is impleaded vide Court order, dated
08.09.2022 in M.P(MD)No.4 of 2013)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8184 of 2013
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the
records comprised in Moo.Mu.3370/2012(A1) dated 09.04.2013 of the
first respondent and the consequent cancellation of ryotwari patta no.
2601 of the petitioners and quash the same as being contrary the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 and in violation
of the principles of natural justice and rule of law.
For Petitioners : Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Sivanu Pandian
Government Advocate
For R3 : No Appearance
For R4 : Mr.N.Mohan
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order
passed by the first respondent herein, under which the patta standing in
the name of the writ petitioners was cancelled and it was restored in the
name of Karuppanna Swami Temple, which was prevailing in the year
1927.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8184 of 2013
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, one
Karuppa Gounder was the owner of Survey No.154/4 having an extent of
6 acres 40 cents. This property was inherited by one Subbiah. The said
Subbiah has sold the property in favour of one Poongodhai. Poongothai
had settled a portion of the property in favour of her husband
Manimaran. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, patta was issued in
their favour in Patta No.2601 for Survey Nos.154/4 and 154/8.
3. This patta was challenged by the fourth respondent herein
before the first respondent on the ground that the entire land belongs to
one Karuppanna Swami Temple and hence, patta ought not to have been
granted in favour of the writ petitioners.
4. The first respondent herein after conducting an enquiry, arrived
at a finding that during settlement proceedings, Survey No.154/1 having
an extent of 5.40 acres was standing in the name of one Karuppanna
Gounder, son of Ekambara Gounder. Survey No.154/9 was classified as
Tharisu and Survey No.154/10 was classified as car track and Survey
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8184 of 2013
No.154/11 having an extent of 0.37 cents alone was classified in the
name of Karuppanna Swami Temple.
5. After arriving such a finding, the first respondent herein had
raised a doubt whether the original pattadhar is Karuppa Gounder or
Karuppanna Gounder or Karuppanna Pandaram. Based upon the said
doubt and certain law and order issue that were raised in view of the
involvement of a temple, he has passed the present impugned order,
directing the Tahsildar to restore the patta in the name of Karuppanna
Swami, which was prevailing in the year 1927, under which 6.70 acres in
Survey No.154/4 was standing in the name of one Karuppanna Swami.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, during
Inam Abolition Act, Survey No.154/4 having an extent of 5.40 acres was
standing in the name of one Karuppanna Gounder. The first respondent
herein, who is the revenue authority cannot have any jurisdiction,
whatsoever to disturb the order passed during the settlement proceedings
under the Inam Abolition Act. He further relied upon a judgment of this
Court reported in 2012 (3)CTC 823 (T.R.Dinakaran Vs. The Revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8184 of 2013
Divisional Officer and others) to impress upon the Court that the
revenue authorities will have jurisdiction to entertain an application for
transfer of patta only in case of inheritance or transfer and in case of rival
claims, the revenue authorities should have directed the parties to
approach the competent Civil Court. Hence, the order impugned in the
writ petition is without jurisdiction.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
had contended that even during the settlement proceedings, error has
happened in recording 5.40 acres in Survey No.154/4 in the name of
Karuppanna Gounder. The entire property, namely 6.70 acres in Survey
No.154 belongs to the idol of Karuppanna Swami. The learned counsel
for the private respondent also brought to the notice of the Court that he
has filed O.S.No.110 of 2014 impleading the writ petitioners as
defendants 2 and 3 therein on the file of District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur
for the relief of declaration of title and cost. Since already Civil Court
has taken cognizance of the matter, the order impugned in the writ
petition may not be disturbed. Otherwise, the writ petitioners may take
advantage of setting aside of the order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8184 of 2013
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the typedset of papers and the judgment produced on the
side of the writ petitioners.
9. A narration of the above said facts will clearly indicate that
there is a serious title dispute with regard to an extent of 5.40 acres in
Survey No.154/4. According to the petitioners, the property originally
belonged to one Karuppa Gounder @ Karuppanna Gounder. On the other
hand, the private respondent claims that it belongs to Karuppanna Swami
idol. This title dispute has to be resolved only by the competent Civil
Court in O.S.No.110 of 2014. Till such time, the order impugned in the
writ petition shall not be implemented by the revenue authorities. The
Status Quo shall prevail. The Civil Court is directed to dispose of the suit
without being influenced by the orders passed by the revenue authorities
or by this Court in this writ petition. The said suit is pending from the
year 2014 onwards. Hence, the learned District Munsif, Thuraiyur is
directed to dispose of the suit on or before 31.03.2023 and report the
same to the registry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8184 of 2013
10. With the above said observations, this Writ Petition stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
18.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Musiri Division,
Trichy.
2.The Tahsildar,
Thuraiyur Taluk,
Trichy District.
3.The District Munsif Court,
Thuraiyur,
Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8184 of 2013
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
gbg
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.8184 of 2013
Dated:
18.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
