Allowed

C.Selvaraju, v. District Revenue Officer

Madras HC27 Aug 2021WP/17602/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a Tahsildar lacks the authority under Section 10 of the Patta Pass Book Act to cancel a patta already issued. The court quashed the cancellation order and directed the appellate authority to hear the dispute on merits via appeal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the patta was set aside; the parties were directed to file an appeal before the first respondent within two weeks.

C.Selvaraju, Vs District Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.NOS. 17602, 34189 & 34190 OF 2013
AND

¶6

M.P.NOS. 1 & 2 OF 2013

¶7

W.P.No.17602 of 2013

¶8

C.Selvaraju

¶9

 ...Petitioner

¶10

Vs

¶11

1.District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶12

2.Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram.

¶13

3.Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District.

¶14

4.Tahsildar,
 Thiruporur,
 Kancheepuram District.

¶15

5.B.Ravi

¶16

6.B.Duraibabu

¶17

7.Kanniammal

¶18

8.Kumari

¶19

9.Bhanu

¶20

 ...Respondents

¶21

W.P.Nos.34189 & 34190 of 2013

¶22

C.Selvaraju

¶23

...Petitioner in
 W.P.No.34189 of 2013

¶24

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

¶25

K.Malarkodi

¶26

...Petitioner in
 W.P.No.34190 of 2013

¶27

Vs

¶28

1.Revenue Divisional Officer,
 Chengalpattu,
 Kancheepuram District.

¶29

2.Tahsildar, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram District.

¶30

3.A.Manivannan

¶31

Power agent of Valarmathi, Sankari and Charulatha

¶32

4.N.Valarmathi

¶33

5.Sankari

¶34

6.N.Charulatha

¶35

7.Rani

¶36

8.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram District ...Respondents in both W.Ps

¶37

Prayer in W.P.No.17602 of 2013 : Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ
of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining
to the order passed by the fourth respondent in patta No.555
issued vide proceedings TKSA/582/1422 dated 25.04.2013 and quash
the same and direct the respondents to restore the original
patta on the respective parties as was in survey No.312/1A and
312/1B in Sathankuppam Village, now Pudupakkam Village,
Tiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶38

Prayer in W.P.Nos. 34189 & 34190 of 2013 : Writ Petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue
a Writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the
order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings
Na.Ka.No.3963/2013/A2 dated 28.11.2013 and quash the same.

¶39

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

¶40

In W.P.No.17602 of 2013

¶41

For Petitioner : M/s.Hema Sampath
Senior Counsel

¶42

For R1 to R4 : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Government Advocate

¶43

For R5 to R9 :Mr.T.T.Ravichandran

¶44

In W.P.Nos. 34189 & 34190 of 2013

¶45

For Petitioners : M/s.Hema Sampath
Senior Counsel

¶46

For R1, R2 & R8 : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Government Advocate

¶47

For R3 to R7 :M/s.P.Bagyalakshmi

¶48

O R D E R

¶49

W.P.No.17602 of 2013 has been filed to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to
the order passed by the fourth respondent in patta No.555 issued
vide proceedings TKSA/582/1422 dated 25.04.2013 and quash the
same and direct the respondents to restore the original patta on
the respective parties as was in survey No.312/1A and 312/1B in
Sathankuppam Village, now Pudupakkam Village, Tiruporur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.

¶50

2. W.P.Nos. 34189 & 34190 of 2013 have been filed to
issue a Writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining
to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings
Na.Ka.No.3963/2013/A2 dated 28.11.2013 and quash the same.

¶51

3. The petitioners in all the writ petitions were granted
patta in respect of the subject property. They are in
possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. There
are civil proceedings between the petitioners and the
respondents 3 to 7 herein. While being so, on the strength of
the proceedings, the respondents 4 to 6 herein approached the

¶52

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

¶53

second respondent for transfer of patta relying upon the
Koorchit. On receipt of the same, the second respondent herein,
after issuance of the notice to the petitioners, conducted
enquiry. After conducting detailed enquiry, issued patta in
favour of the private respondents by an impugned order. When
the patta already stands in the name of the petitioners, if
there is any grievance over the patta, the person has to file an
appeal as provided under Section 12 of the Patta Pass Book Act
before the appellate authority i.e., The Revenue Divisional
Officer.

¶54

4. However, the second respondent considered the said
request and cancelled the patta already granted in favour of the
petitioners. The power of the Tahsildar is to modify and change
the patta as provided under Section 10 of the Patta Pass Book
Act. Section 10 of the Patta Pass Book Act is extracted
hereunder :

¶55

"10. Modification of entries in the patta
pass book :

¶56

(1) Where any person claims that nay
modification is required in respect of any entry
in the patta pass book already issued under
Section 3 either by reason of the death of any
person or by reason of the transfer of interest in
the land or by reason of any other subsequent
change in circumstance, he shall make an
application to the Tahsildar for the modification
of the relevant entries it the patta pass book.

¶57

(2) An application under sub-section (1)
shall contain such particulars as may be
prescribed and shall be accompanied by the
documents, if any, relied on by the applicant as
evidence in support of his claim.

¶58

(3)(a) Before passing an order on an
application under sub-section (1), the Tahsildar
shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed
and shall also give a reasonable opportunity to
thepartiesconcernedtomaketheir
representations either orally or in writing. If
the Tahsildar decides that any modification should
be made in respect of entries in the patta pass
book, he shall pass an order accordingly and shall
make such consequential changes in the patta pass

¶59

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

¶60

book, as appear to him to be necessary, for giving
effect to his order.

¶61

(b) If the Tahsildar decides that there is
no case for effecting any modification in the
entries in the patta pass book, he shall reject
the application.

¶62

(c) An order under Clause (a) or clause

¶63

(b) shall contain the reasons for such order and
shall be communicated to the parties concerned in
such manner as may be prescribed. "

¶64

5. Accordingly, the Tahsildar can modify with regard to
the entries under the Patta Pass Book Act. Therefore, the
Tahsildar has no power to cancel the patta on any grounds.
Therefore, the second respondent has no power to pass the
impugned order on the application filed by the private
respondents herein. On that sole ground, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside. If the respondents are aggrieved over
the patta issued in favour of the petitioners, they are directed
to file an appeal before the first respondent within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
receipt of the appeal, the first respondent is directed to issue
notice to the petitioners herein and all the parties concerned
and after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties,
and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a
period of sixteen weeks thereafter.

¶65

6. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions stand
allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed. No costs.

¶66

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶67

Lpp

¶68

To

¶69

1.District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶70

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

¶71

2.Revenue Divisional Officer,
 Kancheepuram.

¶72

3.Tahsildar,
 Chengalpattu,
 Kancheepuram District.

¶73

4.Tahsildar,
 Thiruporur,
 Kancheepuram District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
 Registration Department,
 Thiruporur,
 Kancheepuram District

¶74

+1cc to M/s.S.Kamadevan, Advocate SR.No.43478

¶75

+1cc to M/s.B.Balavijayan, Advocate SR.No.43477
+1cc to M/s.P.Bhagyalakshmi, Advocate SR.No.43484

¶76

+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.No.43921

¶77

W.P.Nos. 17602, 34189 & 34190 of 2013
and
M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2013

¶78

JP-II(CO)
RVM(27/09/2021)

¶79

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

C.Selvaraju, v. District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Selvaraju, v. 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.Vimal Chand, Vs the Special Deputy Collector

P.Arthanari Vs the Chief Revenue Controlling

S.Ananda Prasad, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.

B.S.Saravanan Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.

Parameswari Vs Stateof Tamilnadu

M/S.Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Vs the Principal Secretary to