Allowed

K.Sai Jaganathan v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC15 Feb 2013WP/11255/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of revenue orders cancelling a patta while civil suits on title were pending. Directed the District Court to dispose of pending suits within three months to resolve the title dispute, holding revenue authorities lack jurisdiction over immovable property titles.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, setting aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar, and directing the District Court to dispose of pending suits within three months.

K.Sai Jaganathan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 15.02.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN

¶5

W.P. No.11255 of 2006

¶6

K.Sai Jaganathan
2. K.R.Krishnan
3. P.Hemamalani
4. M.Jayaraman
5. M/s.Good Neighbours (P) Ltd.,
rep. by its Director Mr.E.Sachukumar
6. G.Balakrishnan
7. K.Baskaran
8. Radha
9. V.R.Usha
10.A.V.Anand ... Petitioners
-vs-
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chengelput, Chengelput District
2. The Tahsildar,
Tambaram, Chengulput District
3. R.Parthasarathy
4. L.Indirani
5. R.Dhanalakshmi
6. R.Gunasekaran
7. R.Usha Rani
8. R.Rukkumani ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.4081/2002/D dated 07.06.2002 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore Patta No.32 in the petitioners names.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.Gowrishankar for M.G.Jeremiah For Respondents : Mr. A.Navaneethan, AGP for R1 & R2 Mr. P.Subba Reddy for R3 to R8

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 & 2 and learned counsel for respondents 3 to 8.

¶12

The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in Na.Ka.No.4081/2002/D dated 07.06.2002 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the earlier patta issued in the name of the petitioners.

¶13

It is an admitted fact that suit in O.S. Nos.178 & 179 of 2001, 475 of 2002 and 275, 479 & 577 of 2004 are pending before the District Court, Chengalput wherein the petitioners and the respondents are parties. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the suits were filed seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction in respect of the properties stated in this writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the date of filing of the suit, patta was issued by the second respondent/ Tahsildar, in favour of the petitioners in patta No.32 during 1994-1995. However based on the appeal preferred by respondents 3 to 8, the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the change of patta issued in favour of the petitioners and reversed the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner in his proceeding No.R1/17770/95. Aggrieved by which, the writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

¶14

According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as suits between the parties are pending before the Civil Court, the first respondent could not have cancelled the patta issued by the second respondent. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision, Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., vs The District Collector, Kancheepuram and others, reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that as there was disputed questions of fact, the writ petition would not be maintainable. However, when there is dispute between parties with regard to certain disputed questions of fact relating to title of an immovable property and the order is challenged on ground of want of jurisdiction, this Court can entertain the writ petition. It cannot be disputed that the revenue authority is not empowered to decide the title nor the possession of an immovable property, for which the competent forum is only the Civil Court, having jurisdiction.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

In the instant case, admittedly Civil suits between the parties to the writ petition are pending before the District Court, Chengalpet. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also drew the attention of this Court to the decision rendered in T.R.Dinakaran vs The Revenue Divisional Officer reported in 2012 (3) CTC 823, wherein it has been held that as per Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, Tahsildar is the competent authority for modification of relevant entries in patta pass book and such modification is permissible only in case of a) death of person b) by reason of transfer of interest in land c) by reason or change in circumstance, however, Tahsildar is bound to give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations orally or in writing, aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildar, appeal was preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the first respondent could not have reversed the order passed by the Tahsildar.

¶17

Per contra Mr. P.Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 8 submitted that originally the suits were pending before the Sub Court, Poonamallee. Subsequently the same were transferred to the District Court, Chengalpet, in view of the jurisdiction conferred on the District Court. It is submitted that the Tahsildar himself passed the order, when the suits were pending before the Sub Court, Poonamallee. It is seen that the Tahsildar had passed the order, when the civil suits were pending and that was reversed by the Revenue Divisional Officer/first respondent, after the suits were transferred to District Court, Chengalpet. It is not in dispute that the Civil Court is competent to decide the title of any immovable property and grant the relief sought for in the suits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer, the first respondent herein has simply set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, the second respondent herein, in view of the pendency of the civil suits.

¶18

Having considered the material papers, averments and the submission made by both the learned counsel, I am of the view to allow the writ petition, directing the Civil Court to dispose the Civil Suits between the parties to this writ petition, according to law within a time frame, to meet the ends of justice. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is also made clear that both the orders passed by the Tahsildar/the second respondent and the Revenue Divsional Officer/the first respondent are liable to be set aside, as the competent forum is only the Civil Court to decide the title and the legal and factual possession of the immovable property relating to the civil suits.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and both the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the earlier order passed by the Tahsildar are set aside and the District Court, Chengalput is directed to dispose all the suits, according to law, uninfluenced by the findings, if any by this Court in this order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without seeking for extension of time. No order as to costs.

¶21

Sd/
Asst. Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
vga
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chengelput, Chengelput District
2. The Tahsildar,
Tambaram, Chengulput District
+1 CC to Mr.D.Ramesh Rai, Advocate, Sr.No.17337.
W.P. No.11255 of 2006

¶22

MRD(CO) KP(04.06.2013)

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Sai Jaganathan v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sai Jaganathan v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Rajagopal Vs Secretary to Government

P.Kerosome Kingsely Selva Vs the Secretary to Govt.

B. Kusalakumar, Vs the Presiding Officer

K. Arumugham Vs the Commander

G.Thangam Ambrose Vs the Govt. of Tamilnadu

Siva Muthiah Vs the State of Tamil Nadu