Allowed

G. Sekar v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC24 Oct 2019WP(MD)/20132/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes an order by the District Revenue Officer which revised revenue records to remove a name from the A Register despite a pending civil suit regarding land title. The court directed the civil court to dispose of the suit within ten months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.07.2019 by the District Revenue Officer was set aside. A direction was given to the civil court to dispose of the pending suit within ten months.

G. Sekar Vs the District Revenue Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.20132 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.10.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.20132 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD)No.16675 of 2019

¶7

G.Sekar ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. 2.K.Sarathi ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the first respondent in his proceedings in Tha.Pa.11/2018/Vu.(2) dated 08.07.2019 and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Govardhanan For R – 1 : Mr.B.Bhagawathi, Government Advocate. For R – 2 : Mr.M.V.Santharaman

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Mr.K.N.Govardhanan, learned counsel on behalf of writ petitioner, Mr.B.Bhagawathi, learned Government Advocate on behalf of first respondent (official respondent) and Mr.M.V.Santharaman, learned counsel on behalf of second respondent (private respondent) are before this Court.

¶14

2.With consent of all three aforementioned learned counsel, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of.

¶15

3.For the purpose of disposal of the main Writ Petition, this Court considers it necessary to extract and reproduce the entire orders (proceedings of this Court made on 19.09.2019) when the Writ Petition was listed before this Court in the admission board. The said proceedings read as follows:

¶16

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

¶17

1/8

¶18

W.P(MD)No.20132 of 2019

¶19

'Mr.A.K.Hemaraj, learned representing Counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

Subject matter of instant writ petition is 'land comprised in Survey No.145/3A in Baburajapuram Village, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District' ( hereinafter 'said land' for brevity). This Court is informed that said land admeasures an extent of 20.50 Ares or thereabouts.

¶21

There is no disputation or disagreement that a civil suit in O.S.No.107 of 2017 between the second respondent (private respondent) and writ petitioner is pending on the file of Principal District Munsif's Court, Kumbakonam (hereinafter 'said civil suit' for brevity), with regard to said land.

¶22

Pending civil suit, second respondent moved the jurisdictional Sub-Collector, who passed an order dated 21.04.2017 bearing Reference Na.Ka.213/2017 A3, wherein and whereby Sub-Collector held that the out come of civil suit has to be awaited owing to the pendency of the same. This order of the SubCollector was carried to the first respondent viz., jurisdictional 'District Revenue Officer' ('DRO' for brevity) by the second respondent and the DRO has passed an order dated 08.07.2019 bearing reference in Tha.Pa.11/2018 (hereinafter 'impugned order' for brevity).

¶23

Impugned order of first respondent has been assailed in the instant writ petition.

¶24

In the impugned order, the first respondent after noticing the pendency of the civil suit, has said owing to the pendency of civil suit, the name in the A Register ie., writ petitioner's vendor's name shall be removed. In other words, first respondent, vide impugned order, has ordered change in the revenue records while civil suit with regard to said land is pending at the instance of second respondent after noticing that civil suit with regard to said land is pending between writ petitioner and second respondent. One more aspect of this matter is that the impugned order is passed as if the writ petitioner, who is the respondent in the revision petition did not appear before the first respondent, but the name of the Counsel who appeared for the writ petitioner has been recorded in the order. It has been misconstrued as if the said Counsel is appearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

2/8

¶26

W.P(MD)No.20132 of 2019

¶27

for the second respondent before this Court, while he was actually representing the writ petitioner viz., G.Sekar.

¶28

Most relevant part of the impugned order are last two paragraphs which read as follows:

¶29

“ Gy vz ;. 145/3A it nghWj ;jtiu tprhuizf ;F mioj;Jk ; r P uha ;T kD Nghpy; vjph ; kDjhuh ; jug ;gpy ; MIh ; ,y;iy ehsJ Njjp tiu vjph; cWjp Mtzk ; jhf ;fy ; nra ;atpy ;iy Fk;gNfhzk ; rhh ; Ml;rpah; Nfhg ;NghL Ma ;T nra;jjpy ; rhh ; Ml ;rpah; tl ;l mYtyf Kd ;Nfhg ;Gfis Ma ;T nra ;jjhf Fwpg ;gpy ;iy. NkYk ; ,e ;Neh ;tpy ; Gyvz;. 145/3A m-gjpNtl ;bd ; gb nry ;yk ;khs ; vd;gth ; ngahpy ; cs;sJ. Nkw ;gb nry;yk ;khsplkpUe;J Nfhtpe ;jrhkp kfd; Nrfh ; ngaUf ;F gl ;lh khWjy ; vj;jifa mbg ;gilapy ; vd ;gjw ;F Mtz Mjhuq ;fs ; VJk ; jhf ;fy ; nra ;ag ;gltpy ;iy.

¶30

vdNt ,e ;Neh ;tpy ; e P jpkd ;w tof ;F epYitapy ; cs ;sJ vd ;gij fUj ;jpy ; nfhz ;L e P jpkd ;wj ;jpy ; j P h ; g ; G tUk ;tiu Gy vz ; 145/3A -y ; Nrfh ; vd ;gthpd ; ngaiu e P f ; fp m-gjpNtl ;by ; cs ;s nry ;yk ;khs ; ngaiu jhf ;fy ; nra ;J cj ;jputplg ;gLfpwJ.

¶31

,e;j cj;jutpdhy; ,lUWNthh ; chpa chpikapay ; e P jpkd ;wj ;jpid mZfp jhth nrhj ;jpd ; k P jhd chpikia epiyehl;bf ; nfhs ;SkhW njhptpf;fg ;gLfpwJ. ” ”

¶32

(Underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and high light)

¶33

8. Notice regarding admission returnable in a fortnight ie., returnable by 03.10.2019.

¶34

9. Mr.B.Bhagavathi, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of first respondent (official respondent).

¶35

10. With regard to second respondent (private respondent), writ petitioner is permitted to take out private notice returnable by 03.10.2019.

¶36

11. Registry to show the name of State Counsel in the next listing.

¶37

12. List in the motion list on 03.10.2019.'

¶38

4.The aforesaid proceedings encapsulates the factual matrix and the controversy in the instant Writ Petition in a nutshell.

¶39

5.To be noted, when the matter was in the admission board on 19.09.2019, an order of interim stay qua impugned order was also granted in W.M.P(MD)No.16675 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶40

3/8

¶41

W.P(MD)No.20132 of 2019

¶42

'WMP' for brevity) and the interim order is operating.

¶43

6.Proceedings made thereafter on 03.10.2019 in main writ petition and WMP are also relevant. Proceedings made on 03.10.2019 in main Writ Petition and in the aforesaid WMP are as follows:

¶44

'W.P(MD)No.20132 of 2019:

¶45

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings of this Court dated 19.09.2019.

¶46

2. Mr.M.V.Santharaman, learned counsel who has entered appearance on behalf of the second respondent submits that a suit in O.S.No.107 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam pertains to some other survey number or in other words it does not pertain to S.No.145/3A is his say.

¶47

3. It is not in dispute that second respondent is sole defendant in the suit. It is not in dispute that suit summons have been served on the sole defendant.

¶48

4. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for writ petitioner seeks time to file a copy of the plaint as additional typed set of papers.

¶49

5. List in the motion list on 24.10.2019 .'

¶50

W.M.P.(MD)No.16675 of 2019

¶51

in W.P.(MD)No.20132 of 2019

¶52

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of the proceedings in main writ petition today.

¶53

2. Interim order already granted on 19.09.2019 to continue until further orders.

¶54

7.Today, an additional typed set of papers dated 24.10.2019 has been brought on board by learned counsel for writ petitioner.

¶55

8.In the additional typed set of papers, copy of the plaint in O.S.No.107 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'said suit' for brevity) pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam has been filed. To be noted, writ petitioner before this Court in the instant Writ Petition is the plaintiff in said suit and the second respondent before this Court in the instant Writ Petition is the sole defendant in said suit. The plaint schedule property in said suit reads as follows:

¶56

brhj ; J tpguk ;

¶57

jq ; rht{h ; o! ; ohpf ; l ; , Fk ; gBfhzk ; rg ; o! ; ohpf ; l ; , Fk ; gBfhzk ; jhYf ; fh, 102 ghg[uh$g [uk ; tl ; lk ; , Bfhl ; ila{hpy ; eq ; ir rh ; Bt 145/2 https://hcservices.ecou rts.gov.in/hcserv (cl ; gphpt [ 145/2A1, 145//2B2, ices/ 145/3A ) Vf ; fh ; 1 brz ; L 60 -y ;

¶58

4/8

¶59

W.P(MD)No.20132 of 2019

¶60

bjd ;
K.
eq ;

¶61

bjd ; ghjp brz ; l 80 kl ; Lk ; . ehd ; bfy ; iy tha ; f ; fhYf ; F Bkw ; F, K. Br&\hj ; jphpahh ; eq ; irf ; F tlf ; F, tha ; f ; fhYf ; F fpHf ; F, g{kh mk ; khs ; eq ; irf ; F bjw ; F njw ; Fs ; gl ; lJ.'

¶62

( Underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight )

¶63

9.The sole defendant in the said suit (second respondent before this Court) has entered appearance and filed written statement disputing the title of the writ petitioner / plaintiff. Therefore, writ petitioner / plaintiff has also taken out an interlocutory application inter alia under 'Order VI Rule 17 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for brevity) seeking amendment of the plaint wherein writ petitioner has inter alia sought to amend the plaint to make a declaration of title prayer also. Affidavit in support of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC petition placed before this Court is as follows:

¶64

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

¶65

5/8

¶66

W.P(MD)No.20132 of 2019

¶67

10.Therefore, it is clear that a title suit qua said land between writ petitioner and second respondent is pending in the competent jurisdictional civil Court. When a title suit is pending, the impugned order has been passed, after noticing the title suit but ordering amendments in the revenue records on the teeth of title suit qua said land. The relevant portion of the impugned order has been extracted in paragraph 7 of 19.09.2019 proceedings of this Court which has been extracted and reproduced supra. This Court is informed that impugned order of the 'District Revenue Officer' (hereinafter referred to as 'DRO' for brevity) has been made in exercise of power of revision under Section 13 of the 'Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1986)' (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act' for brevity) against the order of the 'Revenue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶68

6/8

¶69

W.P(MD)No.20132 of 2019

¶70

Divisional Officer' (hereinafter referred to as 'DRO' for brevity) which is dated 21.04.2017 and the same has also been placed before this Court. Most relevant portion of the order made by RDO reads as follows:

¶71

n e ; epiyapy ; tHf ; fwpqh ; jpU. V.G. .utpf ; Fkhh ; mth ; fs ; jpU. Brfh ; vd ; gth ;

¶72

rhh ; gpy ; mDg ; gpa [s ; s, ghh ; it 4-y ; fhZk ; mwptpg ; gpy ; ghg [uh$g[uk ; fpuhkk ; g[y vz ; 145/2 (cl ; gphpt [ 145/2A1, 145//2B2, 145/3A ) bjhlh ; ghf jdJ fl ; rpf ; fhuh ; jpU.Brfh ; vd ; gtUf ; Fk ; jpU.rhujp vd ; gtUf ; Fk ; Fk ; gBfhzk ; Kjd ; ik khtl ; l chpikapay ; ePjpkd ; wj ; jpy ; mry ; tHf ; F 107/2017 ele ; J tUtjhft [k ; , vdBt Bkw ; go tHf ; fpy ; nWjp jPh ; g ; g [ Vw ; gLk ; tiu e.f.213/2017 m 23 ehs ; 09.03.2017 rk ; ge ; jg ; gl ; l eltof ; iffis epWj ; jp itf ; ft [k ; vd Bfl ; Ls ; shh ; '.

¶73

11.This Court is of the considered view that 'sub-Rule 4 of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987' (hereinafter referred to as 'said Rules' for brevity) is of relevance and the said Rules is piece of subordinate legislation made in exercise of rule making power under Section 21 of the said Act.

¶74

12.Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4 of said Rules read as follows:

¶75

'4.Procedure on receipt of application or

¶76

information.-

(1) .......

(2) .......

(3) .......

(4) In the event of the Tahsildar being satisfied that a dispute concerning ownership of patta is already pending in a Court or issues are raised before him which impinge or personal laws or laws of succession and all the parties interested do not agree on the ownership in writing, he shall direct the concerned parties to obtain a ruling on ownership from a competent civil Court having jurisdiction before changing the entries as already recorded and existing in the various revenue records.'

¶81

13.This Court is informed that the original order of Thasildar (against which appeal to RDO has been made) has been passed in adherence to sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4 of the said Rules. From the relevant portion of the order of the RDO, which has been extracted supra, it is clear that this principle is reflected in the order of RDO in appeal. However, the first respondent DRO vide impugned order has revised in the aforesaid manner the order of RDO though pendency of the suit has been noticed, more particularly, by making the observation which has been extracted in paragraph 7 of this Court's earlier order dated 19.09.2019. This in the considered view of this Court is clearly contrary to the scheme of the said Act and it is clearly not sustainable.

¶82

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14.Owing to the narrative thus far, impugned order of the first

¶83

7/8

¶84

W.P(MD)No.20132 of 2019

¶85

respondent DRO being order dated 08.07.2019 bearing Reference No.Tha.pa.11/2018/Oo(2) is set aside.

¶86

15.Though obvious, it is made clear that it is open to the parties ie., writ petitioner and second respondent to approach the revenue authorities after disposal of the suit and subject to the outcome of the aforesaid suit.

¶87

16.With consent and at the request of writ petitioner and second respondent, a direction is given to the jurisdictional civil Court, namely Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, to dispose of O.S.No.107 of 2017 as expeditiously as would pending cases ie., cases filed prior to the instant civil suit would permit. In any event, this Court directs the civil Court to dispose of the suit within a period of ten months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as pleading are completed.

¶88

17.Instant Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶89

Sd/-

¶90

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶91

// True Copy //

¶92

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶93

¶94

Encl:

¶95

Copy of the scanned Images To

¶96

The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶97

Copy to:

¶98

The Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.

¶99

+1 CC to M/s.K.N.GOVARDHANAN, Advocate (SR-94293[F] dated 24/10/2019 +1 CC to M/s.T.R.SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate (SR-94514[F] dated 25/10/2019 +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-94666[F] dated 25/10/2019 )

¶100

W.P(MD)No.20132 of 2019 24.10.2019

¶101

JMN(08.11.2019) 8P : 6C

¶102

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

¶103

8/8

G. Sekar v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Sekar v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Vaiyalingam Vs the Commissioner

M.Thiagarajan Vs The District Collector

Rajasekar Vs The District Collector

M.Palanisamy Gounder, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Siluvai, S/O. Jorris, Vs the District Collector

Pandi Vs The Govt. of India