Madras High Court
R.Ramadoss vs The District Revenue Officer on 9 January, 2023
W.P.(MD).No.21006 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD).No.21006 of 2016
R.Ramadoss ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai Revenue Division,
Sivagangai District.
3.V.Ramachandran (Died)
4.Annakodi
5.Chelladurai
6.Vallimayil
7.Veerasangumuthu
8.Alaguraman
9.Nagakani
10.Nagarathinam
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21006 of 2016
11.Vijayakumari ...Respondents
(R-6 to R-11 are legal representatives of the deceased 3rd respondent, who are
brought on record vide Court order dated 25.04.2017 in W.M.P.(MD).No.3143
of 2017 in W.P.(MD).No.21006 of 2016)
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 the
records of the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.
B1/11285/2014 dated 20.08.2016 and quash the same as illegal and allow the
revision filed by the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2
to cancel the patta issued in the name of the respondents 3 to 5 and issue patta
in the name of the petitioner in S.Nos.429/10 and 429/12 in Muthuvanthidal
Village, Melachorikkulam Revenue Pirka.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam
For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.V.Om Prakash,
Government Advocate.
For R-4 : No appearance
For R-6 to R-11 : Mr.J.John
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first
respondent in Na.Ka.B1/11285/2014 dated 20.08.2016 and to allow the
revision filed by the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21006 of 2016
to cancel the patta issued in the name of the respondents 3 to 5 and issue patta
in the name of the petitioner in S.Nos.429/10 and 429/12 in Muthuvanthidal
Village, Melachorikkulam Revenue Pirka.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the land in Survey Nos.429/10 and
429/12 are classified as Natham land and is in possession of the petitioner's
family for a very long time. During the year 2014, it came to the knowledge of
the petitioner that patta has been issued for the said lands in favour of the third
and fourth respondents. Hence, he had approached the District Revenue
Officer/the first respondent herein seeking to redress his grievance. However,
the first respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated 20.08.2016, had
rejected the claim of the petitioner and had directed him to approach the
appropriate Civil Court, if he is aggrieved against the said order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first
respondent had not considered the case of the petitioner on merits and had
rejected his claim on the ground of limitation stating that he has approached the
authority after a period of 14 years. Hence, he would seek interference with the
order passed by the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21006 of 2016
4. Mr.V.Om Prakash, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the third and fourth respondents were
granted patta based upon the Natham settlement proceedings conducted in the
year 1999. The petitioner had not approached the authorities within the
prescribed time limit and therefore, his claim is time barred.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side.
6. At the outset, this is a dispute claiming title to a property, which is
classified as Natham lands. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a
judgment in the case of Kuppuswami Nainar Vs. The District Revenue
Officer, Thiruvannamalai and others reported in (1995) 1 MLJ 426, has held
as follows:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21006 of 2016
if we are to interfere with the order under appeal, it is the other
party, who has to 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, stand modified accordingly.
With these observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequently
C.M.P. No. 15872 of 1994 filed along with the appeal is also
dismissed.”
7. In view of the aforesaid categorical ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court, I am not inclined to enter into the dispute that has
been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. It is
for the parties to approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate relief to redress
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21006 of 2016
their grievances. In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the
petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Civil Court to redress his grievance.
There shall be no order as to costs.
09.01.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Lm
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai Revenue Division,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21006 of 2016
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Lm
W.P.(MD).No.21006 of 2016
09.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
