Madras High Court
E.Harinath vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2023
W.A.No.2308 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.10.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2308 of 2021
E.Harinath .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate,
Kanchipuram-631 501.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Kanchipuram District,
Collectorate Office,
Kanchipuram-631 501.
3.The Sub-Collector,
Office of the Sub-Collector,
Chenglepet.
4.The Tahsildar,
Thirupporur Taluk,
Thirupporur,
Kanchipuram District.
5.M.Natesan .. Respondents
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2308 of 2021
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.6.2021 mad in
W.P.No.27031 of 2018.
For the Appellant : Mr.J.Ravikumar
For the Respondents : Mrs.R.Anitha
Spl. Government Pleader
for respondents 1 to 4
: Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Deivanandam
for respondent No.5
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.J.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the
appellant; Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for
respondents 1 to 4; and, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior
Counsel for Mr.M.Deivanandam, learned counsel for the fifth
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2308 of 2021
2. The present appellant is the original petitioner in the writ
petition bearing No.27031 of 2018. The said writ petition was
filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the second
respondent dated 16.8.2018 confirming the order passed by the
third respondent in the writ petition.
3. The whole issue is with regard to the grant of patta in the
name of a particular person.
4. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order did
not interfere with the order passed by the respondent authorities
and held that it is for the civil court to decide the issue of title.
The learned Single Judge further observed that while deciding the
civil suit, the civil court shall not take into account any of the
findings either of the revenue authorities in the impugned orders
or of the writ court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2308 of 2021
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits
that patta was issued in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the
appellant in the year 2007. The present respondent No.5 has
filed a civil suit in the year 2014 seeking declaration of his
ownership and also challenged various sale deeds executed by
the predecessor-in-title of the appellant/writ petitioner. The said
suit is pending. In view of the fact that the civil suit is pending,
the revenue authorities ought not to have entertained the
application filed by the fifth respondent and passed orders
cancelling the patta granted in the year 2007.
6. To buttress his submission that the revenue authorities
should not have decided the matter and ought to have awaited
the decision of the civil court, learned counsel for the appellant
relies upon the judgment of a Division Bench in W.A.No.2585 of
2018, dated 02.1.2019 (Madras Litrex Private Limited and others
v. M/s.Shree Arunachala Foundations Private Limited, rep. by its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2308 of 2021
Managing Director R.Ravi and others). Learned counsel submits
that the Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment held
that when there is a dispute regarding title, the authority
concerned has to direct the parties to approach the civil court
without making any alternation in the patta.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that one
Sathyanarayana Reddy was the original owner of the property.
He had executed a power of attorney in favour of Prabha
Irudhaya Mary, who subsequently sold the property in favour of
the fifth respondent. In fact, the said power of attorney was
cancelled. In view of that, respondent No.5 would not get any
right.
8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the fifth
respondent submits that the power of attorney was cancelled
after the sale deed was executed and valid title has passed in
favour of the fifth respondent. The encumbrance that the sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2308 of 2021
deed is already executed in favour of the fifth respondent was
recorded in the relevant record. As such, it cannot be said that
the appellant/writ petitioner is a bona fide purchaser.
9. It is trite that the revenue authorities cannot decide the
issue of title. It is only the competent civil court which has the
jurisdiction to decide the issue of title/ownership.
10. The entries in the revenue record are meant for fiscal
purposes. The revenue authorities are also bound by the
judgment delivered by the civil court with regard to title. In view
of that, the issuance of patta in favour of “A” or “B” person would
not affect the litigation before the civil court. On the contrary, if
patta is issued by the revenue authorities, the same would be
subject to the decision of the civil court and the decision of the
civil court would prevail over any patta being granted. The
revenue authorities are required to abide by the judgment of the
civil court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2308 of 2021
11. Under the order impugned before the learned Single
Judge, the patta is not issued in favour of the fifth respondent,
nor in favour of the present appellant/writ petitioner. The patta
was issued in favour of one Prabakaran in the year 2007 and
under the impugned order the same is cancelled and directed to
be issued in the name of the original owner Sathyanarayana
Reddy.
12. The learned Single Judge has observed that the civil
court would not be influenced by any of the observation made by
the revenue authorities and/or of the writ court while passing the
order. The civil court certainly has to decide the matter on the
basis of the evidence adduced before it.
13. In view of the fact that the patta today stands in the
name of the original owner, who undisputedly was the owner, and
the parties are fighting amongst themselves, we do not find that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2308 of 2021
the learned Single Judge has committed any error while not
interfering at this stage and observing that the civil court will
decide the proceedings on its own merits. Viewed further, we add
that, it is the judgment of the civil court that would conclusively
determine the title of a person and the same would bind the
parties and the revenue authorities also.
With these observations, the writ appeal stands disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
05.10.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bbr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2308 of 2021
To
1.The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate,
Kanchipuram-631 501.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Kanchipuram District,
Collectorate Office,
Kanchipuram-631 501.
3.The Sub-Collector,
Office of the Sub-Collector,
Chenglepet.
4.The Tahsildar,
Thirupporur Taluk,
Thirupporur,
Kanchipuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2308 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
W.A.No.2308 of 2021
05.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
