Madras High Court
G.Ravi vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 March, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.19787 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)No.19787 of 2013
and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013
G.Ravi
Director,
Sri Parameswari Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.,
Tuticorin Main Road,
Pandalkudi,
Velayuthapuram,
Virudhunagar District. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District.
3. T.A.S.Alagarsamy ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.19787 of 2013
the 2nd respondent's proceedings in Mu.Mu.A(1)-6898-07 dated
10.02.2009 as confirmed by the 1st respondent in his proceeding
Ni.Mu.P.2/13363/2009 dated 09.10.2013 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sivaji
For R1 and R2 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,
Additional Govt. Pleader
For R3 : Ms.Vijayakumari Natarajan
ORDER
This writ petition is filed as against the order of the second
respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District, in Mu.Mu.A(1)-6898-07 dated 10.02.2009 and
the order passed by the first respondent/the District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar, in Ni.Mu.P.2/13363/2009 dated 09.10.2013.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tahsildar, after
considering the documents placed by him, has transferred the patta in
his name. However, on the appeal filed by the third respondent, the
second respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.19787 of 2013
his proceedings in Mu.Mu.A(1)-6898-07 dated 10.02.2009, cancelled
the patta granted by the Tahsildar. Therefore, he has preferred a
revision before the first respondent/the District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar and pending the revision, the third respondent has
approached the District Munsif Court, Aurppukottai and filed a suit in
O.S.No.223/2009 seeking declaration on the subject property. Without
considering the pendency of the suit, the first respondent/the District
Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar, has proceeded with the revision and
passed an order dated 09.10.2013, confirming the order of cancellation
of patta. Aggrieved over that, the petitioner has preferred this writ
petition. In support of his contention, he has also relied upon a
Judgment of this Court in Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., A-2
Third Phase, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 032, rep. by
Director, V.Ravi, vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram and
others, wherein, this Court has observed as follows:
“19. Nevertheless, the core question involved in
the Writ Petition is as to whether in the given facts and
circumstances of the case, it could be entertained in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.19787 of 2013
event Patta has been granted in favour of a particular
individual. On the strength of the title or possession, if
any other person makes an Application to the Revenue
Divisional Officer for cancellation of that Patta and in the
event both the individuals claim title over the property,
the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot adjudicate such
disputed questions and accepting the case of the other
person, he cannot cancel the Patta. The right course to be
adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in such case
is only to refer the Applicant who has come before him
seeking for cancellation of Patta to Civil Court,
especially when his claim is disputed by the individual
who is holding the Patta granted by the Competent
Authority. In the event the Revenue Divisional Officer
by exceeding his jurisdiction decides the question of title
and cancels the Patta, certainly the aggrieved person can
approach this Court by way of a Writ Petition on the
ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer was not
competent to go into the title. The question of alternative
remedy is not available to the aggrieved person as for the
very same reason the District Collector also cannot go
into the disputed question regarding the title or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.19787 of 2013
possession, as the case may be, in the event an Appeal is
filed.
20. ......... In our opinion, the dispute being one
of Civil nature, the title of either the Appellant-Company
or the said Alamelu Ammal cannot be gone into by the
Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional
Officer having gone into such title has not only decided
to cancel the Patta in favour of the Appellant-Company,
but also directed the registration of Patta in favour of
Alamelu Ammal. Both the above acts are without
jurisdiction. In the event the act of the Revenue
Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction, the writ
petition is maintainable. ..... ”
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
first and second respondents submits that though the petitioner had
been given an opportunity to produce documents regarding title, he has
not chosen to produce any document before the second respondent and
therefore, the second respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai, by his proceedings dated 10.02.2009, has corrected the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.19787 of 2013
mistake committed by the Tahsildar. But, the petitioner, instead of
approaching the Civil Court, has preferred the revision before the first
respondent/the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar and therefore,
the first respondent/the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar, has to
take a decision on the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The first
respondent/the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar, after
appreciating all the materials, has rightly confirmed the order of the
second respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai.
Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the first
respondent/District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar.
4. This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused
the materials placed on record.
5. This writ petition is filed as against the orders of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai and the District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.19787 of 2013
6. As per Rule 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules,
1987, if there is rival claim between two parties, the Revenue
Authorities are not supposed to take any decision on the title. In all
fairness, the Revenue Authorities ought to have directed the parties to
approach the concerned Civil Court.
7. In this case, on the appeal preferred by the third respondent,
the second respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai,
by his proceedings dated 10.02.2009, cancelled the patta granted by the
Tahsildar. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the revision before
the first respondent/the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar. The
first respondent/the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar, by his
proceedings dated 09.10.2013 dismissed the revision petition filed by
the petitioner, confirming the order of cancellation of patta. In the
meantime, the 3rd respondent has also filed a suit in O.S.No.223 of
2009 before the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai, seeking relief of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.19787 of 2013
declaration on the subject property.
8. It is very unfortunate that the suit filed in the year 2009 is kept
pending without any progress. It is submitted that in the suit, trial has
not yet commenced.
9. In view of the fact that the issue between the parties is with
regard to the title over the property, this Court, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, cannot decide the said issue.
10. Since the third respondent has already filed the suit in
O.S.No.223 of 2009 and the same is pending before the District Munsif
Court, Aruppukottai, the parties shall work out their remedies before
the District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai, in O.S.No.223 of 2009.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However,
considering that the suit is of the year 2009, the learned District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.19787 of 2013
Munsif, Aruppukkottai, is directed to conclude the suit proceedings in
O.S.No.223 of 2009, within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court is expected to take a
decision, based on the materials placed by the parties, without being
influenced by the observations of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai and District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.03.2023
ogy
NCC : Yes / No.
Index : Yes / No.
Internet: Yes / No.
Note: The Registry is directed to mark a copy
of this order to the District Munsif Court,
Aruppukottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.19787 of 2013
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
To
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District.
W.P.(MD)No.19787 of 2013
08.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
