Madras High Court
Petchiammal vs The District Revenue Officer on 17 November, 2023
W.P. (MD).No.8471 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.11.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P. (MD).No.8471 of 2021
and WMP(MD)No.19220 of 2023
1. Petchiammal
2. K.Deepa Ananthi
... Petitioners
Vs
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Usilampatti, Madurai District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
4. R.Tamil Selvan
5. A.Thiruchirambalam
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is 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, dated 30.12.2020 passed
by the first respondent in Ni.Mu.No.G2/41130/2019 confirming
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD).No.8471 of 2021
impugned order, dated 05.10.2018 in Moo.Mu.No.4871/2018/A4 passed
by the second respondent and restoring the patta for the subject property
in Survey No.1/3A1 measuring 15 Acres 9 Cents, Urappanur Village,
Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District in the name of the legal heirs of
deceased S.T.Kalyani within a time limit that may be stipulated by this
Court.
For Petitioners : Mr. T.R.Jeyapalam
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan (R1to R3)
Additional Government Pleader
No Appearance (R4, R5)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
order passed by the first respondent through proceedings, dated
30.12.2020 confirming the order passed by the second respondent
through proceedings, dated 05.10.2018 and for a consequential direction
to the second respondent to restore the patta, with respect to the subject
property, in the name of the legal heirs of deceased S.T Kalyani.
2.Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3. Though the fourth and fifth respondents have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD).No.8471 of 2021
served with the notice and their names also printed in the cause list, there
is no appearance either in person or through counsel.
3.This court has carefully considered on either side
submissions and the materials available on record.
4.The paternal grandfather of the second petitioner and the
paternal grandfather of the fourth and fifth respondents were brothers.
There was an oral partition in the year 1930 and accordingly, the
properties were distributed and it was enjoyed by the sharers under the
partition. Thereafter, Dhinakarasamy and Velusamy entered into a
registered partition deed on 28.09.1978. As per the partition,
Dhinakarasamy became entitled to the subject property in S.No.1/3,
Urappanur Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, measuring
an extent of 15 acres and 9 cents. On his demise, the property was
inherited by the husband of the first petitioner and father of the second
petitioner along with one Rajeshwari. They in turn entered into partition,
through a partition deed, dated 03.07.1984 and the share, which is the
subject matter in this writ petition was allotted in favour of husband of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD).No.8471 of 2021
the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner.
5.It is further seen from records that the husband of the first
petitioner and father of the second petitioner, filed an appeal before the
second respondent for grant of separate patta for the subject property.
The second respondent through proceedings, dated 03.08.1999 granted
patta in favour of the husband of the first petitioner and father of the
second petitioner by subdividing the S.No.1/3 as 1/3A1.
6.The fourth and fifth respondents along with others filed a suit
for partition and for separate possession of 2/3 share in the entire joint
family property. In this suit, the husband of the first petitioner and father
of the second petitioner was the first defendant. The suit was dismissed
by Judgment and Decree, dated 13.09.2017. It is brought to the notice of
this Court that an appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the suit
before the District Court with a delay and that the delay petition has not
been ordered and appeal has not even been numbered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD).No.8471 of 2021
7.In the meantime, the fourth and fifth respondents submitted a
petition to the second respondent to include their names also in the patta
for the subject property. The second respondent through impugned
proceedings, dated 05.10.2018 directed the names of the fourth and fifth
respondents to be included in the patta. This order was also confirmed by
the first respondent, through the impugned proceedings, dated
30.12.2020.
8.The main issue that is involved in this writ petition is with
regard to the power and jurisdiction of the second respondent to pass the
impugned order, dated 05.10.2018. There is no dispute with regard to the
fact that the second respondent is exercising his jurisdiction under the
Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. Earlier, the second respondent
had passed an order on 03.08.1999, by removing the name of father of
the fifth respondent from the patta and the patta was granted in the name
of the husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner.
When such an order has been passed by the the second respondent, the
second respondent cannot once again deal with the very same issue and
pass a contradictory order, later by transferring the patta in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD).No.8471 of 2021
fourth and fifth respondents. While passing the impugned order, dated
05.10.2018, the second respondent has virtually reviewed the earlier
order that was passed on 03.08.1999. This jurisdiction that was exercised
by the second respondent is illegal and it was beyond the power that has
been vested on the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass
Book Act, 1983. This Act does not give power of review to the second
respondent.
9.The first respondent did not take into consideration this
crucial aspect and had confirmed the order passed by the second
respondent, only on the ground that there is a suit pending before the
competent Civil Court and therefore, the parties were directed to work
out the remedy in the Civil Court.
10.In the considered view of this Court, the impugned order
passed by the second respondent, dated 05.10.2018 is illegal, since the
second respondent has exercised the jurisdiction, which is not available.
Therefore, the said order has to be set aside by this Court and
consequently, the order of the first respondent must also fail. In view of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD).No.8471 of 2021
the same, the earlier position will be restored as it stood pursuant to the
order passed by the second respondent, dated 03.08.1999
11.In the result, the impugned proceedings of the first
respondent in Ni.Mu.No.G2/41130/2019, dated 30.12.2020, confirming
the order of the second respondent in Moo.Mu.No.4871/2018/A4, dated
05.10.2018 are hereby quashed. There shall be a direction to the third
respondent to restore the patta, with respect to the subject property, in
line with the earlier order passed by the second respondent, dated
03.08.1999. The parties are already at loggerheads before the competent
Civil Court and subject to the result before the Civil Court, the parties are
at liberty to work out their remedies.
12.This writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.11.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
PNM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD).No.8471 of 2021
To
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Usilampatti, Madurai District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD).No.8471 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
W.P. (MD).No.8471 of 2021
and WMP(MD)No.19220 of 2023
17.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
