Madras High Court
Arasan vs The District Revenue Officer on 24 February, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.20991 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:24.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.(MD) No.20991 of 2022
Arasan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Theni District, Theni.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Periyakulam, Theni District.
3.The Thasildar,
Andipatti Taluk,
Theni District.
4.Ponnuchamy ... Respondents
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
impugned order of the first respondent dated 06.07.2022 passed in his proceeding
in Na.Ka.No.37577/2018/T2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently
direct the third respondent to restore the joint patta in Patta No.301 in the revenue
records in regard to the property in S.No.27/6 of Ramakrishnapuram Village,
Andipatti Taluk, Theni District.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20991 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sukumar
For Respondents : Mrs.K.Malathi
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3
No Appearance for R4
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of
the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, dated 06.07.2022.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the purchaser of the lands
measuring 49 cents comprised in Ayan S.No.27/6 at Ramakrishnapuram Village,
Andipatti Subdivision, Periyakulam, Theni District, from one Pandi S/o
Subbanaicker. The further case of the petitioner is that a joint patta was issued in
the name of the petitioner's vendor, Pandi and the fourth respondent and the same
was mutated, including the name of the petitioner, subsequent to his purchase on
26.10.2007. The fourth respondent, in the meantime, filed civil suits in O.S.No.
117 of 2006 against the petitioner's vendors and O.S.No.151 of 2007 against the
petitioner herein. The fourth respondent also moved the second respondent for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cancellation of the joint patta. However, the second respondent, by order dated
05.12.2008, rejected the said application of the fourth respondent citing the
pendency of suits before the competent civil Court. However, taking advantage of
ex-parte decree in O.S.No.117 of 2006 filed against the petitioner's vendor, the
third respondent successfully removed the petitioner's name from the joint patta in
Patta No.301, despite the suit in O.S.No.151 of 2007 filed against the petitioner
being pending on the relevant date. The petitioner, on coming to know about the
said cancellation of the joint patta, filed an application before the third
respondent. The third respondent conducted an enquiry and by order dated
18.09.2013, directed inclusion of the petitioner's name and thereby restored the
joint patta in Patta No.301. Aggrieved by the said order of the third respondent,
the fourth respondent filed an appeal before the second respondent seeking
cancellation of the joint patta including the petitioner's name. The petitioner has
also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.127 of 2014 before the District Munsif Court,
Andipatti, against the fourth respondent, initially for the relief of permanent
injunction and subsequently amended the plaint and included the relief of
declaration. It is also an admitted fact that an ex-parte interim injunction was
granted on 13.04.2016, however, subsequently, the suit was also dismissed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
non-prosecution. However, according to the petitioner, an application was taken
out by the petitioner and the suit has been restored to file and the same is now
pending trial. In the meantime, the second respondent, in and by proceedings
dated 07.12.2017, cancelled the joint patta, including the petitioner's name. The
grievance of the petitioner is that when the suit was pending in O.S.No.127 of
2014, the second respondent ought not to have usurped the rights of the civil
Court and passed the impugned order. Taking advantage of the order, separate
patta was also issued in the name of the fourth respondent in respect of the lands
in S.No.27/6. The same was challenged by the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4244 of
2018. However, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the second
respondent to pass orders on the revision filed by the petitioner, on merits and in
accordance with law. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed by the
first respondent, confirming the order of the second respondent dated 07.12.2017.
3.I have heard the learned counsel on either side. Though a counter
affidavit has also been filed by the fourth respondent, there is no appearance
today.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.It is the specific case of the petitioner that though the first respondent has
cited the cancellation of the document in favour of the petitioner as the primary
reason for sustaining the order of the second respondent dated 07.12.2017, the
proceedings of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, have not even
been referred to or looked into by the first respondent or the second respondent.
In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my
attention to the proceedings of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai,
where the Inspector General of Registration has clarified that the circular
originally issued in Circular No.67 of 2011 has been recalled and therefore there
is no power on the registering authorities to cancel any registered document or
hold that such documents are null and void and the proper remedy would be to
file a civil suit. Ignoring the said categorical directions of the Inspector General
of Registration, the first respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order
based on the finding that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner has been
declared as fraudulent by the District Registrar, without noticing the circular of
the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, dated 28.03.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the
disputed lands in S.No.27/6, Ramakrishnapuram Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni
District, were measuring 1.98 acres as per the revenue records during the SLR
settlement and the fourth respondent has purchased the lands in S.No.27/6 in and
by the sale deed, dated 05.10.2000 in Document No.2659 of 2000. It is the case of
the petitioner that he purchased 49 cents of the said S.No.27/6 under the
registered sale deed dated 26.10.2007 in Document No.5093 of 2007. The first
respondent placed reliance on the findings of the District Registrar that the sale
deed in favour of the petitioner was fraudulent. The first respondent has also
accepted the observations of the second respondent that the civil suit filed by the
petitioner in O.S.No.127 of 2014 had also been dismissed and only pending the
writ petition, the suit was restored to file. It is therefore contended by the
respondents that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the first
respondent.
6.However, considering the fact that the petitioner's suit for declaration and
injunction is pending and in and by circular in Reference No.K3/27160/2008,
dated 13.03.2018, the Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Chepauk, has given directions to the Revenue Divisional Officers and the District
Revenue Officers to comply with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.9215 of
2013, dated 23.10.2017. The instruction (d) is with regard to the pendency of civil
suits over disputed lands and in such circumstances, the revenue authorities
should stay away and direct the parties to seek remedy before the pending suits
and thereafter, approach the revenue authorities based on the judgment and decree
of the civil court. The Revenue Divisional Officers and the District Revenue
Officers were called upon to scrupulously ensure the directions issued by the
Commissioner of Land Administration are followed. Unfortunately, despite
noticing the fact that the suit had been filed by the petitioner for declaration and
injunction, the first respondent has proceeded to place reliance on the order of the
District Registrar holding that the petitioner's sale deed is fraudulent, without
noticing the subsequent order passed by the Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai, setting aside the order of the District Registrar in view of the circular
itself being withdrawn, the registration authorities cannot declare the documents
to be null and void.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Therefore, on this limited ground itself, the order of the first respondent
impugned in the writ petition, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, is
unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order of the second
respondent is also liable to be set aside. Admittedly, Patta No.301 was issued in
the joint names of the petitioner and the fourth respondent and therefore, the said
position is directed to be restored by the third respondent/Tahsildar subject to the
final outcome of the civil suit in O.S.No.127 of 2014 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Andipatti.
8.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
24.02.2025
sji
NCC: Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The District Munsif Court, Andipatti.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Theni District, Theni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Periyakulam, Theni District.
4.The Thasildar,
Andipatti Taluk,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.B.BALAJI, J.
sji
24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
