Allowed

R.Chellammal v. the District Collector

Madras HC17 Apr 2021WP/23434/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras held that the District Collector could exercise revisional powers under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. The quashed the impugned order for lack of reasoning and remitted the matter to the District Revenue Officer to decide it on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted to the District Revenue Officer to be decided on merits within three months.

R.Chellammal Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 23434 of 2010

and

W.M.P. No. 1 of 2010

R.Chellammal

... Petitioner

-vs-

1. The District Collector,

¶12

District Collector's Office,

¶13

Erode District,

¶14

Erode.

¶15

2. The District Revenue Officer,

¶16

Erode District,

¶17

Erode.

¶18

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶19

District Collector's Office Complex,

¶20

Erode.

¶21

4. R.Murugesan

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A9/13030/2008 dated 20.09.2010 and quash the same.

¶24

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Valliappan

¶25

For Respondents:Mr.N.Inbanathan

¶26

Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3

¶27

Mr.T.Murugamanickam Senior Advocate for Ms.Zeenath Begum for R4

¶28

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

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A9/13030/2008 dated 20.09.2010 and quash the same.

¶31

2. The case of the petitioner is that, in respect of the land at S.No.723/3, the Revenue Authorities had made a subdivision subdividing S.No.723/3 into 3A and 3B. In order to cancel the said subdivision made in the said Survey Number of the land which according to the petitioner is objectionable, a revision was filed before the District Revenue Officer, as against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in appeal, since the said order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer has to be revised only by the District Revenue Officer by exercising his revisional power under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983.

¶32

3. In the present case, a peculiar circumstances arose, where, the very same person who passed the order, when he was Revenue Divisional Officer, subsequently had been promoted as District Revenue Officer, before whom, the Revision filed by the petitioner had come. Therefore, the matter had been referred to the first respondent / District Collector, on the ground that, the District Revenue Officer cannot sit upon to decide the veracity or otherwise of the order passed by himself when he was a Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶33

4. When the matter came up for decision, the first respondent / District Collector has simply rejected the claim by relegating the parties to approach the Civil Court to adjudicate the issue. Therefore, aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.

¶34

5. I have heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Inbanathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondent.

¶35

6. The import of the order impugned for better understanding is extracted hereunder:

¶36

**,j ; njh ; tpy ; . khtl ; l tUtha ; mYtyUf ; F mLj ; J brdid epyeph ; ; thf Mizah ; mth ; fSf ; F bra ; J te ; j ,uz ; lhtJ nky ; KiwaPL uj ; J bra ; J Mizaplg ; gl ; Lk ; . kDjhuh ; tpUk ; gpdhy ; . rptpy ; ePjpkd ; wk ; K : yk ; ghpfhuk njof ; bfhs ; syhk ; vdt [ k ; . murhiz (ms) vz ; 409 tUtha ; ssi(2)

¶37

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

¶38

Jiw ehs ; 02/07/2008?d ; go cj ; jputplg ; gl ; Ls ; sJ. vdnt. kDjhuh ; jk ; kplk cs ; s Mjhu Mtz' ; fspd ; mog ; gilapy ; . rPtpy ; ePjp kd ; wj ; jpy ; Kiwapl ; L. ghpfhuk ; njof ; bfhs ; s bjhptpf ; fg ; gLfpwJ.**

¶39

7. Except the aforesaid one paragraph, no reason and no

¶40

discussion whatsoever has been made for relegating the parties to the Civil Court.

¶41

8. No doubt, insofar as the power vested with the Revenue Authorities under various provisions of The Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is concerned, while exercising their power as Original Authority or Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority, they cannot transgress the jurisdiction vested with them, that means, they cannot decide the title of the properties in question and without deciding the title of the properties or without attempting to take a decision with regard to the title of the properties, they can very well decide the claim of the parties for giving Patta or canceling the Patta, inclusion of the name of the persons in the Patta or deleting it in the Patta.

¶42

9. These are the prime duty vested with the Revenue Authorities under the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act.

¶43

10. Herein the case in hand, as against the order originally passed, appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer who decided the appeal under Section 12 of the Act, as against which, the petitioner preferred the revision under Section 13 of the Act to the District Revenue Officer and in the meanwhile, the same incumbent who had been the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned who passed the order in appeal had become District Revenue Officer through promotion. Therefore, he cannot sit upon his own order and therefore, on that ground, the same had been referred to the first respondent / District Collector for decision.

¶44

11. It means, the first respondent / District Collector has to exercise his revisional power as contemplated under Section 13 of the Act. Section 13, is extracted hereunder:

¶45

"13. Revision.- Any officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of District Revenue Officer authorised by the Government, by notification in this behalf for such area as may be specified in the notification, may of his own motion or on the application of a party call for and examine the records of any Tahsildar or appellate authority within his jurisdiction in respect of any proceeding under this Act and pass

¶46

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

¶47

such orders as he may think fit: Provided that no such order prejudicial to any person shall be made unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making his representation."

¶48

12. However, the first respondent / District Collector as quoted herein above in the impugned order has simply relegated the parties to approach the Civil Court without assigning appropriate reasons and he has not decided the matter in revision by way of merits.

¶49

13. The language used in Section 13 of the Act has made it very clear that, any Officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of District Revenue Officer authorized by the Government can exercise the power of revision under Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, the District Collector, who is certainly not below the rank of District Revenue Officer and above the Revenue Divisional Officer, can very well exercise the power of revision under Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, once the revision is referred to him, he could have decided the same on merits by giving an opportunity of being heard to both sides, instead, the District Collector has simply relegated the parties to go to the Civil Court without giving any reason, as to why the parties need to go to the Civil Court, by passing a cryptic order referred to above.

¶50

14. In these circumstances, this Court feels that, the said order, which is impugned herein, passed by the first respondent / District Collector cannot be sustained in the eye of law especially in view of the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, particularly, under Section 13 of the Act.

¶51

15. In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, the matter can be remitted back to the regular District Revenue Officer, because, by this time, certainly, the earlier District Revenue Officer who could not pass the order, because, he, as a Revenue Divisional Officer, passed the order in appeal, could have been moved away from the present position of District Revenue Office concerned. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition with the following orders:

¶52

"That the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the District Revenue Officer, i.e., second respondent who shall take this direction as a revision within the meaning of Section 13 of The Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and accordingly,

¶53

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

¶54

after giving the reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties, i.e., petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, shall decide the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶55

16. With these directions, this Writ Petition is ordered to the terms indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶58

//True Copy//

¶59

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶60

vji To

¶61

1. The District Collector,

¶62

District Collector's Office, Erode District, Erode.

¶63

2. The District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode.

¶64

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collector's Office Complex, Erode.

¶65

+1cc to Mr.P.Valliappan, Advocate Sr.23428 +1cc to Mr.Zeenath Begum, Advocate Sr.23315 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.23664

¶66

W.P. No. 23434 of 2010 and W.M.P. No. 1 of 2010

¶67

rsv[co] srg 20/07/2021

¶68

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

R.Chellammal v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Chellammal v. the District Collector

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.Sadhuram Vs The District Revenue Officer

K.Karunanithi, Vs The Collector

C.Sivakumar, Vs The Collector

L.Lakshmi Vs The District Collector

K.Nagarathinam Vs The District Collector

M.Ganesan Vs The District Collector