Madras High Court
V.Venkatesh Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 June, 2023
W.P.No.16764 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.16764 of 2023 and
W.M.P.No.16041 of 2023
V.Venkatesh Reddy ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Hosur Taluka,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4.Jayarama Reddy ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned order in Pa.Mu.No.5520/2010/J2 dated
24.03.2023 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal
and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to issue patta to the petitioner
and thereby restore the order of the 2nd respondent made in Mu.Mu.5971/09/
(A4) dated 22.1.2010.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16764 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.Mariappan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Naveenkumar
Government Advocate for R1 to R3
ORDER
The order impugned passed by the District Revenue Officer in
Proceeding dated 24.03.2023 asking the writ petitioner to submit an
application after the disposal of the civil suit instituted in O.S.No.5/2010 is
under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that he is the owner of the lands in Survey
No.668/2, measuring to an extent of 0.36.0 hectares in Patta No.745 situated
at Nallur Village. The 4th respondent submitted an application to the original
authority for cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioner. The
said petition was allowed without conducting any enquiry and notice to the
writ petitioner. Thus, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Hosur, who, in turn, set aside the order passed by the
original authority cancelling the patta granted in favour of the 4th respondent
and restored the patta originally granted in the name of the writ petitioner.
The 4th respondent again filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16764 of 2023
who, in turn, through the impugned proceedings dated 24.03.2023 set aside
the order passed by the First Appellate Authority viz., the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Hosur. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the
present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the
order impugned was passed without any notice to the writ petitioner and
without conducting any enquiry and therefore, the impugned order is in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
4. The grant of patta or its cancellation or mutation of revenue records
are to be done by conducting an enquiry under the Tamil Nadu Patta
Passbook Act, 1983. The provisions of the Act contemplates an enquiry
which is to be conducted by affording an opportunity to all the parties. In
the present case, the order impugned reveals that a civil suit in
O.S.No.5/2010 is pending and therefore, the parties were asked to approach
the competent authority after the disposal of the said suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16764 of 2023
5. Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 provides
'Bar of suits'. The proviso clause denotes that “if any person is aggrieved as
to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made under this Act,
he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his
title to such right, for a 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". Therefore, the authorities competent are duty bound to amend
the patta Pass book based on the decree awarded by the competent civil
Court of law.
6. Curiously the petitioner has submitted a copy of the judgment and
decree dated 17.08.2010 passed in O.S.No.5 of 2010. The suit was instituted
by the writ petitioner Mr.Venkatesh Reddy for declaration and permanent
injunction. The suit was decreed on 17.08.2010 itself. Therefore, it is
apparent that the District Revenue Officer has not conducted any enquiry
nor provided an opportunity to the petitioner to submit the copy of the
decree and the other relevant documents. The competent authority in the
rank of District Revenue Officer is expected to afford an opportunity to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16764 of 2023
conduct an enquiry by the parties concerned and by following the principles
of natural justice. However, in the present case, the District Revenue
Officer has not even verified that the suit instituted by the petitioner was
decreed in his favour.
7. Since there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice
being committed by the District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri, this Court is
inclined to remit the matter back for fresh consideration. Accordingly the
order impugned passed by the 1st respondent in Proceeding
Pa.Mu.No.5520/2010/J2 dated 24.03.2023 is quashed. The matter is
remitted back to the 1st respondent/District Revenue Officer for fresh
consideration. The District Revenue Officer shall issue summons to all the
parties concerned and thereafter conduct an enquiry by affording an
opportunity and decide the issues on merits and in accordance with law
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16764 of 2023
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
08.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Sgl
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Hosur Taluka,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16764 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Sgl
W.P.No.16764 of 2023
08.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
