J.Manimala vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 731 Mad

                                                                            W.P.(MD)No.8744 of 2014


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 19.01.2023

                                                     CORAM :

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

                                             W.P.(MD)No.8744 of 2014
                     J.Manimala                                                ... Petitioner

                                                         /Vs./

                     1.The District Collector,
                       Dindigul District,
                       Dindigul.

                     2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                       Nilakottai Taluk,
                       Nilakottai.

                     3.The Tahsildar,
                       Nilakottai,
                       Dindigul District.

                     4.A.Sarbaraj Navaaj                                       ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus by directing the
                     respondents to issue patta in the petitioner's name by canceling the patta
                     stood in the name of the 3rd parties.


                                  For Petitioner      : Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar
                                  For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash
                                                     Government Advocate (R1 to R3)

                     1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                W.P.(MD)No.8744 of 2014


                                                          ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the

respondents to issue patta in the name of the petitioner by canceling the

patta stood in the name of the third parties.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner is bonafide purchaser in respect of S.No.1107/1

measuring to an extent of 0.81.5 hectares situated at Sevukampatti,

Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, by a registered sale deed bearing

Document No.3229/2011 dated 25.11.2011 from one B.Sundara Pandian.

Originally patta stood in the name of his vendor's mother, Alagayee

Ammal. Inspite of several representations to the third respondent to

issue patta in the name of the petitioner, the same has not been issued.

Thereafter, it was understood by the petitioner that the fourth respondent

herein, who was a Village Administrative Officer had issued patta in

favour of one Rajangam and his brothers, as they have also encumbered

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8744 of 2014

the property. Therefore, she had made representation to the respondents

to issue patta in the name of the petitioner by cancelling patta standing in

the name of third parties. Since the representation has not been

considered, she had approached this Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official

respondents, relying upon the counter filed by the third respondent,

would submit that the petitioner, having admitted in her affidavit that the

patta has been issued in favour of Rajangam and his brother, had not

impleaded them as party respondents in this writ petition and on that

ground alone, this writ petition is liable to be rejected.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official

respondents would further submit that during updation of revenue

records, the name of Alagayee Ammal has been entered. But, however, a

joint patta in the name of solaimalai and five others vide patta No.3711

had been issued. Updation of the name of Alagayee Ammal is not

supported by any documents. However, as per survey and land register

maintained prior to UDR, originally the aforementioned property stood

registered in the name of one Veerayi Ammal. That apart, as on today,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8744 of 2014

the revenue records have been mutated and stand in the name of other

third parties.

6. The petitioner herself in her affidavit, has admitted that patta

stands in the name of third parties. When that being so, Rule 4 (4) of the

Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as

“Rules” for brevity) also prohibits the revenue authorities from entering

into the issue of disputed title for grant of patta and it also mandates the

revenue authorities to direct the parties concerned to approach the

appropriate civil Court. The said Rule has been reiterated in a judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Edelweiss Asset

Constructions Company Limited Vs. R.Perumalswamy and others

reported in 2021 (11 SCC) 98 and hence, he prays this Court for

dismissal of this writ petition.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this

Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8744 of 2014

8. The petitioner, in her affidavit has categorically admitted that

the patta stands in the name of some third parties and has sought for a

direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to issue patta in her name by

cancelling patta standing in the name of third parties. Such an averment

in the writ petition would suffice to hold that there are rival claimants in

respect of aforementioned property. As rightly pointed out by the learned

Government Advocate appearing for the Official Respondents that Rule 4

(4) of the Rules prohibits the revenue authorities from entertaining any

application for issuing patta, if there is a dispute between two private

individuals and it also mandates the revenue authorities to relegate the

parties to approach the appropriate civil Court.

9. In view of the aforesaid provision, even if a direction is issued

to the concerned revenue authority to consider the representation of the

petitioner and pass orders, it will only be incumbent upon the said

authority to relegate the parties to a civil Court, in view of the admitted

fact that there are rival claimants in respect of the same survey number.

Hence, it is always open to the petitioner to initiate appropriate civil

proceedings against parties concerned before appropriate Court to

redress her grievance. In view of the prohibition under Rule 4 (4) of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8744 of 2014

Rules, the prayer as sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate civil

Court to seek redressal of her grievance.

10. In fine, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, it is made

clear for the purpose of reckoning limitation for availing the aforesaid

remedy, the period from the date of filing of this Writ Petition, viz.,

03.06.2014, till the date on which the certified copy of this order is made

ready by the Registry, shall be excluded. There shall be no order as to

costs.

19.01.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Sm

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8744 of 2014

TO:

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nilakottai Taluk, Nilakottai.

3.The Tahsildar, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.8744 of 2014

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

Sm

W.P.(MD)No.8744 of 2014

19.01.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis