Madras High Court
Vrinda Nirodi vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 March, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
1/15 WP No. 3711 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-03-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
WP No. 3711 of 2019
and WMP No. 4093 of 2019
1. Vrinda Nirodi
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Revenue Officer
Chennai District, Chennai
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Egmore, Chennai
3.The Tahsildar,
Velachery Taluk, Chennai
4.T.B.Babu,
Respondent(s)
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records of the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
2/15 WP No. 3711 of 2019
respondent in A2/ 507/ 2016 dated 05.04.2018 and the consequential Order of
the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No. J2/ 10719/ 2018 dated 19.12.2018 and quash
the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the patta
stands in the petitioner's name in respect of the property measuring 38 Cents of
lands in New Survey No.106 and 107/ 1, Old Survey No.125/ 2 Part, which are
corresponding to Paimash Nos.364 and 365 situated at Block No. 23,
Tiruvanmiyur Village, Velachery Taluk at Door No. 5, Old No. 2, New No. 7,
Old No. 2A.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel
Senior Counsel for
Mr.C.Elamurugan
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3
Mr.Harikrishnan For R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of
the 2nd respondent dated 05.04.2018 and the consequential order of the 1st
respondent dated 19.12.2018 and for a consequential direction to respondents 1
to 3 to restore the patta in the name of the petitioner’s father with respect to the
subject property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
2.Heard Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Harikrishnan, learned
th
counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 respondent.
3.The case of the petitioner is that the subject property in S.Nos.106 and
107/1 (Old S.No.125/2 Part) at Thiruvanmiyur Village was owned by one
Arunagiri Naicker and his elder son Marimuthu Naicker along with other large
extents of properties. These properties were partitioned among the brothers
through a Partition Deed dated 21.05.1953 which was registered as Document
No.2546 of 1953. Thereafter, Marimuthu Naicker's son M.Ramalingam along
with his minor legal heirs had sold 19 cents of lands which was inherited under
the Partition Deed to one Seshadri Iyer by way of a Sale Deed dated 05.04.1960
registered as Document No.866 of 1960. Similarly, Murugasamy Naicker @
Murugesa Naicker along with his legal heirs sold 19 cents of lands inherited
under the same Partition Deed to Seshadri Iyer by way of a registered Sale Deed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
dated 05.04.1960 which was registered as Document No.868 of 1960. Thus, the
said Seshadri Iyer purchased a total extent of 38 cents of land in Paimash
Nos.364 and 365.
4.The further case of the petitioner is that the said Seshadri Iyer sold the
entire 38 cents of land in favour of the petitioner's father by way of a registered
Sale Deed dated 30.01.1961 which was registered as Document No.150 of 1961.
The patta was also mutated in his name. Subsequently, the petitioner's father
executed a Settlement Deed dated 06.10.1967 in favour of the petitioner which
was registered as Document No.3705 of 1967. Out of the property that was
settled in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner settled a portion of the property
measuring 10,750 Sq. ft. out of 38 cents of land in favour of his father through a
registered Settlement Deed dated 02.08.1968 registered as Document No.2614
of 1968. After the demise of the father, the petitioner, his mother and his
brothers inherited the property measuring an extent of 10,750 Sq.Ft. with a
house, as legal heirs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
th
5.The 4 respondent submitted an application seeking for change of patta
rd th
in his name before the 3 respondent on 11.08.2014. The 4 respondent
thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.26817 of 2015
seeking for a direction to dispose of the representation. This writ petition was
nd
disposed of by an order dated 27.08.2015 directing the 2 respondent to
consider and dispose of the representation after affording opportunity to all the
parties concerned, within a period of four weeks.
rd
6.Pursuant to the above order, the 3 respondent summoned the petitioner
rd
and the petitioner appeared before the 3 respondent and submitted detailed
nd
explanation along with all the relevant documents. While so, the 2 respondent
initiated proceedings and issued notice dated 22.03.2017. The petitioner
nd
appeared before the 2 respondent along with all the relevant documents. The
nd
2 respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 05.04.2017 cancelled
the patta standing in the name of the petitioner's father. Aggrieved by the same,
st st
the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1 respondent and the 1 respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
nd
confirmed the order passed by the 2 respondent through proceedings dated
19.12.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed
before this Court.
7.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and also the materials available on record.
th
8.The 4 respondent is claiming right over the property by virtue of a
th
Settlement Deed which is said to have been executed in favour of the 4
respondent's father on 15.09.1960 which was registered as Document
th
No.2317/1960. The 4 respondent had presented an unregistered Settlement
Deed when the proceedings were pending before the Revenue Divisional
Officer. In this unregistered Settlement Deed, it is said to have been executed by
Marimuthu Naicker and Murugesa Naicker. While describing the property,
surprisingly, apart from mentioning Paimash Nos.366 and 367, S.No.125/2 was
also mentioned. It will not be out of place to state that there was no Survey
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
Number available in the year 1960. Thereafter, a registered Settlement Deed
dated 12.09.1960 was produced. This Settlement Deed is said to have been
th
executed by Murugesa Naicker and Ramalinga Naicker in favour of the 4
respondent's father. Even in this Settlement Deed, apart from the Paimash
Number, S.No.125/2 has been mentioned. Yet another Settlement Deed was also
available in Document No.2317/1960 which is said to have been executed by
Ramalinga Naicker and Arunagiri Naicker and what was settled are Paimash
Nos.366, 367, 368, 369, 370 and 371 measuring an extent of 1.12 acres. The
earlier Settlement Deed had described the extent as 40 cents.
9.To the shock and surprise of this Court, there is another document which
has been registered in Document No.2317 of 1960 which pertains to a
completely different property at Triplicane.
10.Thus, there is a very serious doubt on the very title document that was
th th
relied upon by the 4 respondent in this case and the 4 respondent all of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
sudden came into the scene for the first time in the year 2014. By relying upon
th
the representation made by the 4 respondent and the Settlement Deed that was
th
relied upon by the 4 respondent which is said to have been executed in favour
th
of the father of the 4 respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer through
proceedings dated 05.04.2018 had directed the patta issued in the name of the
petitioner's father to be cancelled and to restore the same in the name of
Marimuthu Naicker and Murugesa Naicker. This order was subsequently
st
confirmed by the 1 respondent through proceedings dated 19.12.2018.
11.The petitioner is relying upon the title documents which are traceable
th
from the year 1953. Patta also stood in the name of the petitioner's father. The 4
respondent is relying upon some Settlement Deedd and the genuineness of the
Settlement Deeds is highly questionable since four different types of Settlement
Deeds were presented before this Court. Therefore, the very claim made by the
th
4 respondent based on the Settlement Deeds becomes doubtful. Under such
circumstances, the revenue authorities ought not to have ventured into any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
th
enquiry and if at all the 4 respondent has any right and title, he should have
been directed to agitate the dispute before the competent Civil Court.
12.It will be relevant to take note of the Division Bench judgement of this
Court in Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., !-2, Third Phase, Guindy
Industrial Estate, Chennai 32 rep. by Director V.Ravi vs. The District
Collector, Kancheepuram and others reported in 2011 5 CTC 94 and the
relevant portions are extracted herein:
17. The question as to whether the Revenue Authorities be
it the Tahsildar exercising power under Section 3 or under
Section 5 or under Section 10 or the Revenue Divisional Officer
exercising power under Section 12, can consider only a prima
facie case as to the entitlement of a person or persons for
issuance of Patta. In the event such officers encounter a dispute
which could be resolved only by a competent Civil Court, they
would not have jurisdiction to enter into such Civil dispute for
adjudication. To this extent, the judgments in Kuppuswami
Nainar's case followed in Chockkappan's case may be relied
upon. The learned ( Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in the order under Appeal has also
Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
relied upon those judgments and we are in agreement with the
same.
18. As far as the power of this Court to entertain a Writ
Petition on disputed questions, we may refer to the following
decisions of the Supreme Court in Arya Vysya Sabha and others
v. The Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious
Institutions & Endowments, Hyderabad and others, 1976 (1)
SCC 292; Rourkela ShramikSangh v. Steel Authority of India
Ltd. and another, 2003 (4) SCC 317 and Himmat Singh v. State
of Haryana and others, 2006 (9) SCC 256. Therefore, when
disputed questions are involved, this Court will not entertain the
Writ Petition and adjudicate upon such dispute, as it is for the
parties to approach the Civil Court to decide the issue. However,
in the event the order challenged in the Writ Petition is
questioned on the ground of want of jurisdiction, certainly this
Court would entertain the Writ Petition and particularly when
such an order was passed when effective remedy is available
before a Civil Court for a person or persons who seek for
cancellation of Patta. As already pointed out, though the Fourth
Respondent has filed Appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer
seeking for cancellation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploadedof
on: Patta,
14/03/2025in viewpm of
01:02:23 ) the fact that the
Revenue Divisional Officer cannot go into the Civil dispute, his
order cancelling the Patta by deciding the disputed question of
title is without jurisdiction. In thiscontext, we may refer to the
Proviso to Section 14 of the Act which bars the Suit. The Proviso
reads that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he
is in possession by an entry made in the Patta Pass Book under
this Act, he may institute a Suit against any person denying or
interested to deny his title to such right of declaration of his right
under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act and the entry in the
Patta Pass Book shall be amended in accordance with any such
declaration. By that Proviso, in the event any grievance is made
by the Fourth Respondent over the Patta granted to the
Appellant, he should have approached the Civil Court for
necessary orders. In the event the Revenue Divisional Officer
had no jurisdiction to go into the disputed question of title and in
spite of that fact if he decides the same, on the very same
yardstick, the further remedy is only a Revision under Section 13
of the Act which is limited to calling for and examining the
records of either the Tahsildar or the Appellate Authority by the
District Revenue Officer and such Revisional power cannot be
equated to Appellate power. Hence, the contention of the Fourth
Respondent that the( Uploaded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Appellant has 01:02:23
on: 14/03/2025 got an pm )effective remedy of
Appeal and without availing such remedy cannot file the Writ
Petition, has no merit. Accordingly, the said contention is
rejected.
13.The Division Bench has made it very clear that the revenue authorities
cannot go into the right and title over the property and such civil dispute must be
agitated only before the competent Civil Court. This is more so in this case since
th
the title document that was relied upon by the 4 respondent is highly doubtful
th
and questionable. If the very document relied upon by the 4 respondent is
questionable, there is no need to get into the other issues touching upon the
discrepancy of the correlation of the Paimash number and Survey number and
pass further orders cancelling the patta issued in the name of the petitioner's
nd
father. There was no need for the 2 respondent to enter into this issue and pass
st
the impugned order which was confirmed by the 1 respondent.
nd
14.In the light of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings of 2
st
respondent dated 05.04.2018 and as confirmed by the 1 respondent throug
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
proceedings dated 19.12.2018, are hereby quashed and there shall be a direction
rd
to the 3 respondent to restore the patta in the name of the petitioner in the
revenue records with respect to the subject property, within a period of four
th
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If at all the 4 respondent
th
has any right over the subject property, it is left open to the 4 respondent to
agitate the same before the competent Civil Court.
15.In the result, this writ petition stands allowed with the above
directions. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06-03-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
To
1. The District Revenue Officer
Chennai District, Chennai
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Egmore, Chennai
3.The Tahsildar,
Velachery Taluk, Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
ssr
06-03-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
