Madras High Court
Tulsidas K.Patel vs The District Collector on 21 June, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.(MD)No.5354 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.4359 of 2022
Tulsidas K.Patel ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector, Trichy.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruchirappalli, Trichy District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchirappalli, Trichy District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Thiruverumbur, Trichy.
5.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Thiruvembur, Trichy.
6.The Village Administrative Officer,
Elanthaipatti Village, Trichy.
7.Natarajan
8.Hemalatha ... Respondents
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in his
proceedings, dated 18.03.2022 in Na.Ka.A6/32932/2021 and set set aside
the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the authorities to relegate
the parties to approach the competent Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Gandhi
Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Karthikeyan
For R1 to R6 :Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
For R7 and R8 :Ms.AL.Gandhimathi
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Mahadevan
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by Thulsidas K.Patel, son of
Kanthilal L.Patel, in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records relating to an order passed by the second respondent/District
Revenue Officer, Trichy in proceedings, dated 18.03.2022 in
Na.Ka.No.A6/32932/2021 and to set aside the same.
2.Heard Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr.J.Karthikeyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.Ashok,
learned Additional Government Pleader for the first to sixth respondents,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ms.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr.C.Mahadevan, learned Counsel for the for seventh and eighth
respondents.
3.In the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, it had been
stated that the petitioner had purchased the property at S.No.27/2C at
Elanthaipatti Village, Thiruverumbur Taluk and Trichy District
measuring 1 acre and 4 cents on 09.04.2015 from one Mallika Patel by a
registered sale deed registered as Doc.No.1786/2015 in the office of the
Sub Registrar, Thiruverumbur. He also claimed that he is in possession
and the revenue records have been mutated in his name.
4.It had been further stated that much earlier in the year 2013, on a
petition filed by the seventh and eighth respondents, Natarajan, son of
Kandhasamy and Hemalatha wife of Natarajan, to cancel the patta, the
issue was decided in favour of Mallika Patel, the vendor of the petitioner.
5.It had been further stated that after seven further years, the said
seventh and eighth respondents had filed a complaint before the District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Registrar and before the Anti Land Grabbing Cell with the alleged help
of a politician, whose name had not been specified in the affidavit,
alleging that they are the owners of the property and that the documents
had been registered through impersonation. It had also been stated that
the District Registrar had passed an order on 20.05.2020.
6.A Civil suit had also been filed in O.S.No.222 of 2021 on the file
of the District Munsif Court at Trichy. It had been further stated that the
Tahsildar and the Sub Registrar were also defendants in the said suit. It
had also been stated that one Veeraiyan, had also filed O.S.No.732 of
2020 before the Subordinate Court, Trichy questioning the order passed
by the District Registrar.
7.It had been stated that the fourth respondent had conducted an
enquiry and recommended cancellation of patta. It had been further
stated that on 20.10.2021, the third respondent without providing any
opportunity, passed an order adverse to the interest of the Writ Petitioner
herein. A revision was filed before the second respondent under Section
13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. A revision was also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
preferred by the seventh and eighth respondents before the second
respondent.
8.Claiming that the revision filed by the petitioner herein was not
considered, the petitioner had moved before this Court and finally, in
W.A.(MD)No.31 of 2022, a direction was given to the second respondent
to take up both revision petitions, namely, the revision petition filed by
the Writ Petitioner and the revision petition filed by the seventh and
eighth respondents, Natarajan and his wife Hemalatha together for
consideration and to dispose of the same within a period of six weeks.
9.The order in the Writ Appeal may be referred for better
appreciation, since the order passed by the District Revenue Officer was
consequent to such direction in the Writ Appeal and it is the order of the
District Revenue Officer, which is now been put to test.
10.In W.A(MD)No.31 of 2022 [Thulsidas K.Patel vs District
Revenue Officer, Trichy and four others], a Division Bench of this
Court by a judgment, dated 01.02.2022, on a grievance raised that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
revision preferred by the appellant therein was not taken into
consideration by the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, whereas,
on the other hand, he had taken up for consideration a revision preferred
by the fourth and fifth respondents therein/Natrajan and Hemalatha,
passed the following order:
“4.According to the appellant, the revision petition filed by
him is not yet taken on file and numbered, before which, the
Revision Petition filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 was taken up for
enquiry. When there are two Revision Petitions pending, relating to
the same issue, unless both are heard together, there is a chance of
conflicting orders being passed. Before the Writ Court, when it was
mentioned that enquiry has commenced, on the premise that both
the revision petitions are heard together, the Writ Petition was
dismissed by recording the statement of the learned Additional
Government Pleader. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for
the appellant that the revision petition is yet to be numbered and
taken on file by the second respondent.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader also agreed
that he would give suitable instructions to the officials to take up
both the Revision Petitions together.
6.However, we make it as a direction to the second
respondent to hear both the Revision Petitions, filed by the
petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 together by affording
them an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate
orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.The Writ Appeal stands disposed of with the above
directions. No costs.”
11.The Division Bench had made it very clear that the second
respondent must hear both the revision petitions. It had also been made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
clear that opportunity of personal hearing must be given. It had also
been made very clear that appropriate orders on merits must be passed in
accordance with law. A time limit of six weeks had been stipulated. This
judgment of the Division Bench was passed on 01.02.2022.
12.Thereafter, the District Revenue Officer had taken up for
consideration both the revision petitions. It had been earlier contended
that suits were pending before various Courts questioning title and other
aspects. But, however, pendency of those suits was not brought to the
notice of either the Writ Appellate Court or the Division Bench. If suits
had been filed subsequently, then it can be very well stated that the suits
had been instituted subsequently only to prevent, or rather to take up a
position to urge that the District Revenue Officer should not pass orders
consequent to the pendency of the suits.
13.I hold that either way, the Writ Petition suffers from suppression
of material facts. If suits were pending, they should have been disclosed
before the Division Bench If subsequent to the order or judgment of the
Division Bench the suits had been initiated, then it only shows that there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was an underlying mala fide intention in the institution of civil suits only
to prevent the District Revenue Officer from passing any order and not to
enter into discussion and to press upon him that he should pass orders
only after the civil suits were decided.
14.It must also be stated that when this Writ Petition came up for
admission, a learned Single of this Court by order, dated 25.03.2022 had
stated that there shall be an order of interim stay of the operation of the
order passed by the District Revenue Officer.
15.Reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment reported in
2011 (5) CTC 94 [Vishwas Footwear Company Limited vs the District
Collector, Mancheepuram and others] wherein, the Division Bench had
placed an embargo on the revenue authorities/quasi judicial authorities
from entering into a detailed discussion on the title of a property, when
such issue was put before them even as an ancillary issue, while deciding
issues relating to patta or any other revenue documents or as the main
issue. It was held by the Division Bench that examination of title of a
particular property was the prerogative of a competent Civil Court and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the revenue officials should not enter into any discussion on the same.
16.The judgment referred supra is binding on this Court. But there
is one subtle difference. The Division Bench judgment would apply on
all force, when revenue officials conduct parallel enquiry on title, which
should have been conducted by a Civil Court. But when there is an
underlying complaint that fraud had been committed and that more
particularly, impersonation had been done, then, a burden is thrust on the
registration officials to examine whether a particular document presented
before them had actually been presented bona fide or with an underlying
fraud/impersonation. If so, it would mean that there has been a direct
interference in discharge of the official work of the Sub Registrar, since
the names stated in the documents presented and the persons actually
presenting the document were different.
17.In simple terms, it could be held that there had been
impersonation of the person, who is projected to have executed the
document. This is a direct violation and interference of official duty
discharged by the Sub Registrar. When this aspect is pointed out, a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
burden is cast on the registration authorities to enquire into that particular
allegation.
18.In the judgment relied on, (Vishwas Footwear Company
Limited case referred supra) an embargo was placed on examination of
title, without comprehending a situation where there could be either
impersonation, when a document is presented for registration or
consequent to such document being registered, revenue authorities had
taken a call on the revenue documents.
19.Both the issues are directly connected. When under normal
circumstances, a sale deed is registered and there is no imputation of
fraud or forgery or impersonation and thereafter, when revenue
documents are urged to be interfered with, then if there is a call to
examine title, the registration or the revenue officials should place a
restraint on themselves from entering into any discussion on title. This is
the dictum laid down in Vishwas Footwear Company Limited case
referred supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20.But, when the original document presented for registration, on
the basis of which the revenue documents are sought to be interfered
with, itself suffers on allegations of impersonation, fraud or forgery, then
enquiry will have to be conducted, on any act done by the revenue
authorities on the basis of such fraudulent document or a document
presented on the basis of impersonation. A discussion will have to be
made whether such document of title can be relied on or not. To that
extent, the facts of this case differs from the facts as stated in the
Vishwas Footwear Company Limited case referred supra and therefore,
the dictum laid down therein would not directly bind this Court.
21.The learned Single Judge, who had granted interim stay, was
swayed by the judgment in Viswas footwear case and I must quite
honestly state that the learned Single Judge had been misled into granting
an order of interim stay.
22.Let me now take up the impugned order, namely, the order of
the District Revenue Officer. It had been impugned on the ground of
mala fide. It had been impugned on the ground that the District Revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction by rendering a finding on title. It
had also been impugned on the ground that the District Revenue Officer
should have closed his eyes and should not have passed such an order
particularly, because Civil Suits were pending and should have relegated
the parties to adjudicate all issues before the civil cost.
23.It must also be kept in mind that not only were civil suits
pending, but also a complaint of impersonation/forgery or fraud which
had been preferred before the Anti Land Grabbing Cell was also pending.
I am informed today during the hearing that a charge sheet had also been
filed by the Investigating Agency. Fraud vitiates every solemn act. Once
fraud is alleged or impersonation of an individual when a document is
presented is alleged, then due credence must be given to that particular
allegation and the same should be enquired into.
24.In the instant case, the petitioner herein had claimed that he had
purchased the lands in S.No.27/2C measuring 1 acre 4 cents from
Mallika Patel. It is very specifically alleged by the seventh and eighth
respondents that they were the owners of the property and by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
impersonation, Mallika Patel had sold the property to the petitioner
herein. Even if Mallik Patel had actually appeared and had executed the
document, still once there is allegation of impersonation, till those issues
are decided by a competent Court, the revenue documents should have
retained the names of those persons, in whose names, the documents
originally stood. It stood in the names of the seventh respondent,
Natarajan and eighth respondent, Hemalatha.
25.Let me take up the allegation relating to undue influence
alleged to have been exerted on the District Revenue Officer. It had been
contended in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that a
politician had apparently exercised influence on the District Revenue
Officer. If that be so, the name must be given. He must be arrayed as a
respondent. The date on which, he was present before the District
Revenue Officer and the manner in which he exerted such influence must
be stated.
26.It is to be kept in mind that when fraud is alleged, specific
details must be stated. Asserting extraneous influence was exercised in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the affidavit in a Writ Petition requires, details to be provided.
Unfortunately, the petitioner had not given the name of the politician.
The dates have not been given. The said individual has not been arrayed
as a respondent in the Writ Petition.
27.The other issue, which had been taken up for discussion relates
to title. The discussion relating to title is only ancillary. The original
document was examined by the District Revenue Officer and he was
presented with a finding of the District Registrar that the document for
the entire lands should be cancelled consequent to impersonation having
been committed at the time of registration. When that finding had been
given, the District Revenue Officer should give credence to that
particular finding.
28.It is contended that suits are pending, but as stated by me, this is
a fact which should have been brought to the notice of the Division
Bench. If suits were filed subsequently, it is clear that the suits were
filed only with an intention to put on hold any order by the District
Revenue Officer. Therefore, I would not give any credence to the suits
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
which are pending.
29.The third aspect raised about the change of patta, overriding the
earlier order of the Revenue District Officer, who had directed the parties
to approach the Civil Court. The District Revenue Officer by the
impugned order had only brought about status-quo ante. The Civil Court
can proceed in their own very manner and it is common knowledge that
the judgment of the Original Suit would not bring about on end to this
lis. The Law provides appeal. The Law provides a Second Appeal. The
Law provides moving over to the Supreme Court for a further appeal.
30.But when patta had been transferred on the basis of documents
which are alleged to have been created fraudulently and by
impersonation, then a duty is cast on the revenue officers to ensure that
the patta is reverted back to the name of the original individual and
thereafter, further mutation be done only after the disposal of the suit and
the criminal proceedings, which had been initiated.
31.It had also been contended that the petitioner herein can restrict
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
his claim only to lands in S.No.27/2C measuring 1 acre 4 cents. The
change in the name of the revenue records by the impugned order from
the name of the petitioner to the name of the original owners, Natarajan
and Hemalatha is affirmed by me and upheld by me.
32.Let the Writ Petitioner go over to the Civil Court and assert his
case and establish his case and establish title and naturally, if it is done
so, the revenue authorities would be bound such decision. But mere
pendency of the Civil Suits, should not be come in the way particularly,
when fraud is alleged. I would therefore dismiss the Writ Petition and
permit the Writ Petitioner to move over to the Civil Court for any relief
he seeks.
33.The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes / No 21.06.2023
Internet :Yes (2/3)
NCC : Yes/No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Collector, Trichy.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruchirappalli, Trichy District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchirappalli, Trichy District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Thiruverumbur, Trichy.
5.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Thiruvembur, Trichy.
6.The Village Administrative Officer,
Elanthaipatti Village, Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
cmr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.5354 of 2022
21.06.2023
(2/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
