Madras High Court

V.V.V.Nachiappan vs The District Collector on 18 July, 2023

                                                                                WP No.14621 of 2017

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 18-07-2023

                                                       CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                               WP No.14621 of 2017
                                                       And
                                            WMP Nos.15851 to 15853 of 2017



                     1.V.V.V.Nachiappan, B.E., IRSE (Retd.) (Deceased)
                     2.N.Velappan
                     3.N.N.Narayanan
                     4.N.Devarajan
                     5.A.Nachammai
                     6.S.Valliammai
                     [Petitioners 2 to 6 substituted as LRs of the
                      deceased first petitioner vide order of
                      Court dated 30.06.2023 made in WMP
                      No.24952 of 2022 in WP 14621 of 2017]                  ... Petitioners


                                                         Vs.


                     1.The District Collector,
                       Chennai District,
                       Rajaji Salai,
                       Chennai-600 001.

                     2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                       Egmore Division,
                       Egmore,

                     Page 1 of 10



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   WP No.14621 of 2017

                        Chennai.

                     3.The Tahsildar,
                       Mambalam Guindy Taluk,
                       Ashok Nagar,
                       Chennai-600 083.

                     4.S.N.Padmanathan

                     5.P.M.Elavarasan                                    ... Respondents


                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
                     relating to the impugned order dated 18.05.2017 Ref.No.A2/536/2017
                     passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently
                     direct the respondent Authorities to grant a joint patta in favour of the first
                     petitioner and his children viz., N.Velappan, N.Narayanan and N.Devarajan,
                     Mrs.A.Nachammal and Mrs.S.Valliammai in respect of the property viz., all
                     that plot of land measuring 4000 sq.ft., bearing Plot N.27, in Kumaran
                     Colony Layout, forming part of Survey No.158, T.S.No.19, Saligramam
                     Village, Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026, Mambalam Taluk (formerly
                     Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk) and to initiate appropriate disciplinary
                     proceedings against the second respondent.



                                    For Petitioners         : Mr.S.Thanka Sivan

                                    For Respondents-1 to 3 : Mr.G.Krishna Raja,
                                                             Additional Government Pleader.


                     Page 2 of 10



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      WP No.14621 of 2017

                                    For Respondent-4          : Not Ready in Notice

                                    For Respondent-5          : Mr.Swarnam J.Rajagopalan

                                                        ORDER

The order passed by the second respondent-Revenue Divisional

Officer in proceedings dated 18.05.2017, is under challenge in the present

writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of the land

measuring 4000 sq.ft., bearing Plot N.27, Kumaran Colony Layout,

Vadapalani forming part of Survey No.158, Saligramam Village,

Mambalam Taluk. The first petitioner states that respondents 4 and 5

interefered with the possession and enjoyment of the first petitioner in the

said property. Despite the fact that patta stands in the name of the first

petitioner. In other words, the Tahsildar issued patta in the name of the first

petitioner and the first petitioner holds the title documents.

3. The respondents 4 and 5 are not possessing any such

documents to establish their title and illegally interfered with the possession

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.14621 of 2017

and enjoyment of the first petitioner in the property and therefore, the

petitioner filed criminal complaint and subsequently filed criminal OP

No.14039 of 2012 and the FIR registered against the respondents 4 and 5 is

pending.

4. The respondents 4 and 5 filed civil suit in C.S.No.377 of

2017 for a declaration of title and the said civil suit was dismissed with the

cost and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent

brought to the notice of this Court that the respondents 4 and 5 filed

Original Side Appeal in OSA No.299 of 2018, which is pending before the

Division Bench of this Court.

5. Admittedly, an appeal in OSA No.299 of 2018 is pending.

The question arises whether the Revenue Authorities can effect changes in

the revenue records during the pendency of the civil suit before the

Competent Court of Law. Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book

Act, 1983 indicates bar of suits and the proviso clause stipulates that “if any

person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry

made in the patta pass book under this Act, he may institute a suit for a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.14621 of 2017

declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

(Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the patta pass book shall be

amended in accordance with any such declaration”.

6. If at all, the Revenue Authorities exercised their powers

under the Patta Pass Book Act, during the pendency of the civil suit before

the Competent Court of Law, the same would cause prejudice to either of

the parties. Therefore, the pendency of civil suit before the Competent Court

of Law is to be construed as a bar for exercising the powers by the Revenue

Authorities under the provisions of the Patta Pass Book Act. The revenue

records would not confer any title over the property.

7. More-so, the Revenue Authorities are incompetent to

adjudicate the disputed facts between the parties under the provisions of the

Patta Pass Book Act. Section 3 of the Act stipulates the issue of patta pass

book.

8. Accordingly, the Tahsildar shall issue the patta pass book to

every owner in respect of the land owned by him on an application made in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.14621 of 2017

this behalf. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute in respect of the

ownership or title. In respect of undisputed properties, the Tahsildar is

competent to issue patta. If there is any dispute, then he is incompetent to

decide the disputed issues of civil nature.

9. Therefore, in the event of pendency of the civil suit, the

Tahsildar may not be in a position to issue patta or adjudicate the disputed

issues between the parties. In the event of issuing any patta during the

pendency of the civil suit, any one of the party may take undue advantage

before Court of Law.

10. The parties claiming title or ownership is expected to prove

the same independently based on the documents and evidences available on

records. Therefore, the patta originally granted before the Tahsildar prior to

the institution of the suit cannot be taken into consideration.

11. When the matter has gone before the Revenue Divisional

Officer b that time, the respondents 4 and 5 instituted civil suit and

therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rightly passed the impugned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.14621 of 2017

order by stating that the application is to be considered only after disposal

of the civil suit pending before the Competent Court of Law. The civil suit

admittedly was dismissed by the High Court and the fifth respondent

preferred an appeal in OSA No.299 of 2018.

12. The principles in this regard has been considered by the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vishwas Footwear Company

Ltd vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram [(2011) 5 CTC 94], wherein in

paragraph-17, it has been observed as under:-

“17. The question as to whether the Revenue Authorities be it the Tahsildar exercising power under Section 3 or under Section 5 or under Section 10 or the Revenue Divisional Officer exercising power under Section 12, can consider only a prima facie case as to the entitlement of a person or persons for issuance of Patta. In the event such officers encounter a dispute which could be resolved only by a competent Civil Court, they would not have jurisdiction to enter into such Civil dispute for adjudication. To this extent, the judgments in Kuppuswami Nainar's case followed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.14621 of 2017

in Chockkappan's case may be relied upon. The learned Judge in the order under Appeal has also relied upon those judgments and we are in agreement with the same.”

13. That being the factum, either of the parties are at liberty

either to approach the Revenue Authorities only after disposal of the civil

litigations pending before the Competent Court of Law.