Madras High Court
V.Nagavalli vs The District Revenue Officer on 10 January, 2023
W.P(MD).No.592 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P(MD)No.592 of 2014
and
M.P(MD) No.1 of 2014
V.Nagavalli ..... Petitioner
- Vs-
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Collectorate,
Ramanathapuram.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Thasildar,
Mudukulathur Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
4. A.Ramachandran ... Respondents
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
relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in P.M.27435/2013(P5),
dated 13.12.2013 and quash the same as illegal.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.592 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Anbarasu
For Respondents : Mr.G.Siva Raja
Government Advocate
(For R1 to R3)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
order passed by the first respondent granting patta in respect of Survey Nos.
288/27, 288/28 and 288/29 in Venkalakurichi Village, Mudukulathur Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. In view of the Rule 4 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act,
1983, when the revenue authorities come across the dispute of title as
regards the property, for which, patta has been granted, it is incumbent on
them to refer the parties to the civil Court and they cannot proceed to
adjudicate the dispute and decide, who is entitled for patta. For better
appreciation, the said Rule is extracted hereunder:
4 (4). In the event of the Tahsildar being
satisfied that a dispute concerning ownership of
patta is already pending in a Court or issues are
raised before him which impinge on personal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.592 of 2014
laws or laws of succession and all the parties
interested do not agree on the ownership in
writing, he shall direct the concerned parties to
obtain a ruling on ownership from a competent
Civil Court having jurisdiction before changing
the entries as already recorded and existing in the
various revenue records.
3. This Rule has been reiterated by the Honourable Apex Court in the
judgment reported in 2021 (11) SCC 98 (Edelweiss Asset Constructions
Company Limited Vs- R.Perumalswamy and others) in which it has been
held as follows:
“18. The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987
provide for the procedure to be adopted to deal with
enquiries with respect to the entries made in the Patta
Pass Book. Rule 4 provides for the procedure on recipient
of an application or information with respect to an entry
in the Patta Pass Book. The relevant portion of Rule
Provides thus:
“4. Procedure on receipt of application
or information -
(1) On receipt of the application or
information, the Tahsildar shall make an entry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.592 of 2014
in the “Register of Applications Received”in
the order of receipt in Form III. The Register
shall be maintained village – wise.
(2) On the basis of the information
furnished in the application and as available in
the existing land records or obtained otherwise,
the Tahsildar shall cause to be served or
despatched, under certificate of posting, to the
persons having interest on the land a notice in
Form IV calling upon them to make
representation either orally, or in writing at a
specified place on a specified date which shall
be not less than fifteen days and forty days later
than the date of receipt of the application or
information.
(3) On the prescribed date, the Tahsildar
shall conduct a summary enquiry. At the
enquiry, on consideration of age, literacy and
occupation, the Tahsildar may permit an
authorised agent of the owner to appear on his
behalf to supplement whatever the owner has to
state orally or in writing. No legal practitioner
in his professional capacity shall be allowed to
represent any party at such an enquiry. There
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.592 of 2014
shall not be adjournment of the enquiry not
more than twice and that adjournment shall be
granted only on application made by the parties
requesting for adjournment. Reasons for
granting or refusing the adjournment shall be
recorded by the Tahsildar in writing.
(4) In the event of the Tahsildar being
satisfied that a dispute concerning ownership of
patta is already pending in a Court or issues
are raised before him which impinge on
personal laws or laws of succession and all the
parties interested do not agree on the
ownership in writing, he shall direct the
concerned parties to obtain order on the
ownership from a competent Civil Court having
jurisdiction before changing the entries as
already recorded and existing in the various
revenue records. (emphasis supplied)
In terms of Rule 4(4), the Tahsildar upon
being satisfied that a dispute concerning the
ownership of patta is already pending in a
Court or any issue that is raised before him
impinges on personal or laws of succession
shall direct the parties concerned to obtain and
“order of ownership” from a competent civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.592 of 2014
Court having jurisdiction and accordingly
change the entries recorded in various revenue
records.
19.Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act,
1983 and the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 the
Tahsildar is not empowered to adjudicate upon a “title
dispute”. A combined reading of Section 14 and Rule 4(4)
indicates that where there exists a dispute with respect to
ownership of a land between parties with respect to a
patta entry, the correct procedure to be adopted is to
approach a civil Court having competent jurisdiction. The
entry records will be updated on the basis of the decree of
the civil court upon adjudication.
20. In the present case, Government Order dated
17.08.2004 revoked the powers of rectification of defects
in updating of registry cases conferred upon the Tahsildar
by Government Order No.921 dated 15.08.2001. Instead,
Government Order dated 17.08.2004 empowered the DRO
to cure any defects occurring in the land registry after
enquiry. In the present case, the first respondent by an
application dated 07.09.2015 approached the DRO for
change of patta in respect of the disputed lands. The DRO
issued summons to the appellant to prove its legal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.592 of 2014
ownership and possession. By an order dated 28.12.2015,
the DRO solely relied on the report of the Revenue
Divisional Officer and ordered deletion of the appellant's
name from the land records and replaced it with the first
respondent's name. The Revenue Officer had no
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon title. A dispute with respect
to the title of land is a mixed question of fact and law,
which needs to be raised before a competent civil Court.
21. The narration of facts in the earlier part of the
judgment makes it clear that on 26.02.1964, the State of
Tamil Nadu executed a deed of assignment in favour of
WSIL. The deed of assignment specifically records that the
lands vested in the State of Tamil Nadu free of all
encumbrances and were allotted to WSIL. The entire case
of the first respondent, was founded on an alleged sale
deed of 09.10.1929, under which his father acquired the
land and an alleged oral lease, by which the land was
leased in favour of WSIL in 1963. Neither the sale deed
nor the terms of the alleged oral lease have been produced
in the course of the proceedings. Once the lands were
acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu, any pre-existing
claim of the first respondent would stand extinguished.
The purpose of the Government Order dated 17.08.2004, is
to enable the DRO to rectify the defects in the land
registry. The DRO exceeded his jurisdiction by engaging in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.592 of 2014
an exercise of investigating the title to the disputed land
and substituting the first respondent with the appellant in
the land records. The learned Single Judge was correct in
holding that the DRO in the guise of acting in accordance
with the said Government order, wrongly adjudicated upon
the question of title which was beyond jurisdiction”.
4. In view of the same, the parties are at liberty to approach the Civil
Court seeking redressal of their grievances and thereafter, to approach the
revenue authorities for issuance of patta in consonance with the decision in
the civil proceedings.
5. With the above said observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.01.2023
NCC: Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.592 of 2014
To
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Collectorate,
Ramanathapuram.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Thasildar,
Mudukulathur Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.592 of 2014
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
ebsi
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.592 of 2014
10.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
