Remanded

Mr.T.Harishraj v. District Collector

Madras HC9 Apr 2021WP/27547/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a Revenue Divisional Officer exceeded jurisdiction by deciding property title in an appellate order. The writ petition was disposed of by expunging those findings and remanding the matter to the District Revenue Officer for a fresh revision under Section 13 of the Patta Pass Book Act, 1983.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order expunged; matter remitted to District Revenue Officer for revision under Section 13 of the Patta Pass Book Act on merits.

Mr.T.Harishraj Vs District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.27547 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date : 09.04.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.No.27547 of 2010

¶4

1.T.Harish Raj
2.Minor T.Vishnuraj
3.T.Deepika
4.D.Sindhoori ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tambaram,
Kancheepuram District.
5.L.Parthasarathy
6.M.Rajasekaran
7.R.Sakthivel
8.P.Ammani
9.P.Vasuda
10.T.R.Ramakrishnan
11.Durai Mahadevan
12.J.Krishna Murthy
13.J.Bhaskar
14.B.Indira
15.M.Bhuvaneshwari
16.Parameshwaran
17.Pandurangan
18.Dr.V.Chiranjeevi
19.Naveen Kumar Kesavalu ... Respondents
[R18 & R19 are impleaded as per order
dt. 11.08.2018 in M.Ps.1 & 2 of 2014
W.P.27547 of 2010]

¶5

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus

¶6

1/16

¶7

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

¶8

W.P.No.27547 of 2010

¶9

to call for the records of the third respondent in Pa.Mu.No.1078/2010/A dated 27.10.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to restore the pattas granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶10

For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.R.Vijayakumar Additional Government Pleader

¶11

For 5th Respondent : Mr.Manikandan For M/s.K.Kalaivani

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in Pa.Mu.No.1078/2010/A dated 27.10.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to restore the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners.

¶14

2.With regard to the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents at the land in question, for issuance of patta, it seems that, an order has been passed by the respondent Tahsildar, as against which, the aggrieved party preferred an appeal under Section 12 of the Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 (referred to as 'the Act') and the said appeal having been considered was decided by the respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 27.10.2010 in Pa.Mu.No.1078/2010/A, which is the order impugned in this writ petition.

¶15

3.When a question was asked by this Court about Section 13 of the Act that why revision has not been filed against the order impugned to the Revisional Authority viz., District Revenue Officer concerned, Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, no doubt, revision could be filed by the petitioners aggrieved over the order impugned, however, in the order impugned, the Revenue Divisional Officer has travelled beyond his jurisdiction by giving findings atleast

¶16

2/16

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.27547 of 2010

¶19

in three places with regard to the title of the property and therefore, that kind of findings given by the third respondent is without jurisdiction. Therefore, on that ground, he has filed this writ petition and therefore, before canvassing the merits of the case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, if those findings given by the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer in the order impugned are expunged, he has no objection to remit the matter back to the Revisional Authority viz., District Revenue Officer concerned, who can revise the order which is impugned herein on merits and in accordance with law on its own merits uninfluenced by any findings given by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶20

4.Insofar as the said arrangement is concerned, as projected by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, almost all the counsel appearing for the respondents, except the counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, have agreed that the matter can be remitted back to the Revisional Authority to take it as a revision under Section 13 of the Act. However, Mr.Manikandan, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent has objected to and would say that if at all the matter is remitted back to the second respondent District Revenue Officer for taking it as a revision and to decide the same independently based on its own merits, the findings whatever given by the Revenue Divisional Officer through the impugned order shall not be touched and if any findings given in this regard by the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer in the impugned order including the finding with regard to the title is erased or expunged by this Court, that will prejudice the interest of the fifth respondent, therefore, in respect of that move, he made opposition.

¶21

5.I have heard Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents who would submit that, if this Court decides to remit the matter back to the District Revenue Officer, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that, as against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer i.e., the impugned order, there is an effective alternative statutory remedy available under Section 13 of the Act and such remedy should have been exercised by the parties, without which, they should not have approached this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, on that ground itself, the matter can be remitted back to the Revisional Authority to workout their remedy therein.

¶22

6.I have considered the said submissions made by the learned

¶23

3/16

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.27547 of 2010

¶26

counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶27

7.In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, which is agreed upon by the other learned counsel appearing for the respondents except the learned counsel for the fifth respondent and also considering the view expressed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents about the availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 13 of the Act, this Court do not propose to decide the issue on merits, instead, it can explore the possibility of remitting the matter to the Revisional Authority, for which, the relevant provision under Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act can very well be pressed into service, which reads thus:-

¶28

"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 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."

¶29

8.Therefore, the power is vested with the District Revenue Officer in case the order is passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (Appellate Authority) either on application by the aggrieved party or by suo motu action to take it up as a revision and accordingly can decide the same and pass orders as he may think fit. However, the Revisional Authority shall not pass any order prejudicial to any person unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making his representation.

¶30

9.It is a settled proposition of law that, when there is an effective alternative statutory remedy is available in the statute, that should be explored first by the litigant and without exhausting the same, a litigant shall not approach this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶31

10.Whenever this writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is sought to be invoked, a declaration would normally be made by the litigant stating that the litigant has no alternative

¶32

4/16

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.27547 of 2010

¶35

efficacious statutory remedy, therefore, he was constrained to approach this Court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶36

11.Here in the case in hand, admittedly there is an effective alternative statutory remedy available under the statute especially under Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act as quoted herein above, hence without exhausting the same, the writ petition ought not to have been filed before this Court. However, Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that, insofar as the merits of the case is concerned, that could be canvassed by the petitioners. As against the impugned order passed by the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is concerned, no doubt a revision could have been filed by the petitioners. However, in this case, atleast in three places definite findings have been given by the Revenue Divisional Officer through the impugned order deciding or otherwise of the title of the parties concerned, therefore, that kind of findings could not have been given by the Revenue Divisional Officer as he does not have such a power to decide the title of the petitioners as the said job is left to the Civil Court and therefore, the parties should have been relegated to approach the Civil Court, if they have not already approached.

¶37

12.The said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is appealing to this Court. Therefore, what this Court feels that while remitting the matter back to the Revisional Authority i.e. District Revenue Officer concerned, the specific findings made by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the impugned order in three places, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, which tend to decide the title of the parties concerned, can be expunged or removed. The relevant portion of the orders are extracted hereunder:

¶38

"... ,jid bjhlh;e;J jpU/fpUc&;zd; bgahpYk; gl;lh bgwg;gl;ljhf tprhuizapy; Twg;gLfpwJ/ tUtha;j;Jiw fzf;Ffspy; nkw;go g[yk; br';fHdp ehaf;fh; bgahpy; 1467k; gl;lhtuhf jhf;fyhfpa[s;sJ/ jpU/br';fHdp ehaf;fUf;Fk; gj;jpuj;jpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s Fg;g[rhkp ehaf;fUf;Fk; vt;tpj gj;jpuj; bjhlh;g[k; ,y;yhj gl;rj;jpy; jpU/fpUc&;zd; bgahpy; bgwg;gl;l gl;lh nghypahdJ vd;gJ epU:gzkhfpwJ/ cz;ikahdjhf ,Ue;jhy; 1998 y; ele;j ,e;j khw;wk; fzf;Ffspd; br';fHdp ehaf;fh; bgaiu khw;wp MWKf ehaf;fh; bgahpy; khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;oUf;f ntz;Lk;/ khw;wk;

¶39

5/16

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.27547 of 2010

¶42

VJk; bra;ag;glhj tifapy; jpU/fpUc&;zd; khw;wg;gl;ljhf Twg;gLk; gl;lhtpd; cz;ik jd;ikapd; nghpy; re;njfk; vGfpwJ/ rk;ke;jg;gl;l epyj;ij nkhroahf tpw;gjw;Fj;jhd; eilKiwg;gLj;jg;gl;lJ vd;W re;njfpf;f Kfhe;jpuk; cs;sJ/ nkYk; gjpag;glhj gj;jpuj;jpd; mog;gilapYk; nkYk; fzf;Ffspy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s gl;lhjhuUf;F fpiuak; bfhLj;jtUf;Fk; ,ilna bjhlh;g[ ,y;yhj epiyapy; mjid mog;gilahf bfhz;L khw;wg;gl;l gl;lh khWjy;fspd; cz;ikj; jd;ikapd; nghpy; re;njfk; vGfpwJ/ Vw;fdnt gl;lh khWjy; bra;ag;gl;l fpua';fspd; cz;ikj;jd;ik mwpaKoahj tz;zk; rk;ke;jg;gl;l 8V nfhg;g[fSk; fpilf;fg;bgwtpy;iy/ gjpag;gl;l bghJ mjpfhug; gj;jpuk; kw;Wk; bghJ mjpfhug;gj;jpuj;jpd; mog;gilapy; g[y vz; 113-4y; f PH ;f ;fz;l gj;jpu';fspd; mog;gilapy; epfHg;gl;l tpw ;gidfs cz ;ikahd tpw ;gidfs vd Vw ;f ,ayhJ/ nkYk; fpUc&;zd; vd;gth; 29/04/1998 ehspl;l gj;jpuk; K:yk; jpU/rjpc&; vd;gtUf;F tH';fg;gl;l bghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;jpy; 0/32 brd;l;Lf;F kl;Lnk tH';fg;gl;Ls;sjhf Fwpg;gplg;gLfpwJ/ Mdhy; fpl;lj;jl;l 0/44\ brd;l; tp!;j P uzk; tpw;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,e ;j tpw ;gid msnt fpua' ;fs ; cz ;ikahdJ my ;y vd epidf ;f mjpf tha ;g ;g [ Vw ;gLfpwJ/ t/ gj;jpu vz; fpiuak;bgw;wth; tp!;j P uzk; vz; 1 gj;jpu vz; 2066-2000 o/j Pgpfh ikdh; fhh;oad; 4416 rJu mo ehs; 21/06/2000 o/j';fuh$ 2 gj;jpu vz; 312-2000 n$/re;jpughg[ eha[L j-bg 4800rJu mo ehs; 07/02/2000 b$auhk eha[L gj;jpu vz; 311-2000 4800rJu mo ehs; 07/02/2000 ikdh; o/cwhpc&;uh$; gj;jpu vz; 519-2001 ikdh; o/tpc&;Qquh$; 4800rJu mo ehs; 14/02/2001 ikdh; o/rpe;J}hp gj;jpu vz; 518-2001 fhh;oad; o/jpy;iyuh$; 4800rJu mo ehs; 14/02/2001 3 gj;jpu vz; 313-2000 v!;/Mh;/rpe;J 4800rJu mo gj;jpu vz; 2711-2000 ikdh; o/cwhpc&;uh$; 4800rJu mo ehs; 28/07/2000 ikdh; o/tpc&;Qquh$; fhh;oad; o/jpy;iyuh$ vdnt. jpU/Fg;g[rhkp ehaf;fh; vd;gtuhy; MWKf ehaf;fUf;F 1941-y; fpiuak; bra;ag;gl;ljhf Twg;gLk; gj;jpuk; gjpag;glhjjhYk; tUtha; fzf;Ffspy; chpa gj;jpu bjhlh;g[ ,y;yhjjhYk; nkw ;brhd ;d Mtz' ;fis 6/16

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.27547 of 2010

¶45

///// cz ;ikahdit vd Vw ;f ,ayhJ/

¶46

nkw;brhd;d tpsf;f';fspd; mog;gilapYk; Kiwahd Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; jpU/fpUc&;zd; bghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuk; ,y;yhjjhYk;. jd;Dila je;ij fpiuak; bgw;wjhf Twg;gLk; 1941-k; tUlj;jpa gj;jpuk; gjpag;glhj xd;W vd;w tifapYk; bghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;jpid bjhlh;e;J Kfth; vk;/Mh;/rjpc&; vd;gtuhy; fpiuak; bra;agl;L gjpag;gl;l Mtz';fs; midj;Jk; Kiwahdit my;y vd;W fUJtJld; mtw;iw bfhz;L gl;lh khWjy;fs; bra;a , ayhJ vd;gij fUj;jpdpy; bfhz;Lk; jw;nghJ eilKiwapy; cs;s g[y vz; cl;gphpt[fs; 113-4V2V1. 113-4V2V2/ 113-4V2V3. 113-4V2V4 tp!;j P uzk; Kiwna 0/16/0. 0/04/5. 0/04/5. bcwfnlh; bfhz;lit midj;Jk; uj;J bra;ag;gl;L g[jpa cl;gphpthf 113-4V2V tp!;j P uzk; 0/29/5 bcwf;nlh; vd khw;wg;gl;L jpU/br';fHdp ehaf;fh; bgahpnyna gl;lh jhf;fy; bra;a cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ/"

¶47

(Emphasis supplied)

¶48

13.In the aforesaid paragraphs of the impugned order, the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer has given findings with regard to the title and entitlement of the parties concerned on the disputed properties.

¶49

14.This kind of findings normally cannot be accepted from the Revenue Authority, especially the authorities as has been provided under the Patta Passbook Act as the issue to be decided is only to such entitlement or otherwise of the party in getting patta or otherwise.

¶50

15.If a complicated question is placed before the Revenue Authority with regard to the title of the property or there are rival claim with regard to the title of the property in question, then the issue would be normally relegated to the Civil Court and in this regard, such a findings on title cannot be given by the Revenue Authority. Therefore, the said findings, as has been quoted herein above, are unwarranted. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to expunge those findings, that too in respect of the findings given by the Revenue Divisional Officer through the impugned order with regard to validity of certain documents filed by the parties, and it shall not stand in the way to decide the matter independently on merits by the Revisional Authority viz., District Revenue Officer on remand.

¶51

7/16

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.27547 of 2010

¶54

16.In view of the aforesaid, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders. (i) That the matter is remitted back to the second respondent District Revenue Officer who shall take this remand as a revision under Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act and accordingly decide the issue i.e. the validity or otherwise of the impugned order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶55

(ii) The second respondent while deciding the revision shall independently consider the rival claim to be made by the parties and decide it on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the findings regarding the title or the validity of documents, given by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the impugned order. The above quoted portion of the impugned order are hereby expunged from the impugned order and that shall not have any effect. The Revisional Authority i.e. the second respondent shall decide the issue after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides by giving separate notices within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) Since the order impugned has been stayed by this Court all along till date, the status quo as on today shall be maintained till the disposal of the revision.

¶56

17.With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶57

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII) /TRUE COPY/ Sub-Assistant Registrar Sgl

¶58

8/16

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.No.27547 of 2010

¶61

To
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tambaram,
Kancheepuram District.
+2CC TO M/S.K.KALAIVANI, ADVOCATE, SR.NO. 22419
+1CC TO MR.M.GANESH, ADVOCATE, SR.NO. 23047
+2CC TO MR.B.VIJAY, ADVOCATE, SR.NO. 22864
+1CC TO M/S.SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.NO. 22812
W.P.No.27547 of 2010
PCH(CO)
KKN 29.04.2021

¶62

9/16

¶63

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

Mr.T.Harishraj v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.T.Harishraj v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murugan, Vs the Secretary to Government

K.Balaraman, Vs Mr.Vengadesh

Mrs.H.Jamila Ammal, Vs The Sub Collector

S.Yuvaraj Vs the District Registrar

M.Raju, Vs The District Collector

Mohamed Rafi Sait Vs The District Collector