The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Krishnan seeking grant of patta for specific lands. The Court held that the petitioner had not exhausted the revisionary remedy under the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, rendering the writ petition unentertainable.
Writ petition stands dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.5287 of 2021
Krishnan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2021 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.(MD) No.5287 of 2021
.. Petitioner
Vs
Thanjavur District.
.. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.5590/2017/A3, dated 24-06-2020 and quash the same and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to grant patta in favour of the petitioner, relating to the petitioner's lands in S.Nos.49/22 (Old S.No.49/2 Part), 49/43, and 49/42 , (old S.No.49/3) situate at Thirucherai Village, Kumbakonam Taluk Thanavur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For Respondents R1 to R3 : Mr.C.Ramesh,
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that he has filed a petition for grant of patta for the land in S.Nos.49/22 (Old S.No.49/2 Part), 49/43 and 49/42 (Old.S.No.49/3), situated at Thirucherai Village, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District to the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent appears to have filed a suit in O.S.No.167 of 2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ praying for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as
1/3
W.P.(MD)No.5287 of 2021
against the petitioner herein before the District Munsif Court, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 13.03.2008. As against the same, the 4th respondent has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.31 of 2010 before the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, which was also dismissed on 30.03.2016. The 4th respondent filed yet another suit in O.S.No.68 of 2006 and the suit was also dismissed on 01.11.2007.
2.The 3rd respondent, in respect of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of patta, rejected the same on the ground that there is an appeal pending as against the dismissal of the judgment passed in O.S.No.68 of 2006 and the petitioner was also advised to file a revision before the 1st respondent. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before the 1st respondent under Section 14 of the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and the revision being not disposed of by the 1st respondent, he was before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.13872 of 2019. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 20.06.2019 by giving a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks.
3.In pursuance of the above direction of this Court, the 1st respondent passed appropriate orders in the revision petition on 18.10.2019 by remanding the matter back to the 2nd respondent for proper disposal within a period of 3 weeks. In pursuance of the same, the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 24.06.2020, rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that a case is pending before this Court in W.P.(MD)SR.No.37210 of 2016 and an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam as against the judgment in O.S.No.68 of 2006 is pending. As against the order dated 24.06.2020, the petitioner is before this Court.
4.From the above narrative, it could be seen that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent and as against the same, an effective alternative remedy is available by way of filing a revision before the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. Without exhausting the alternative remedy that is made available in the Act, it is certainly not open to the petitioner to rush to this Court at this stage.
5.This Court has time and again held that in respect of patta matters, proper remedies that are made available in the Act need to be exhausted as the Revenue Authority alone is the competent authority to pass appropriate orders in respect of grant, transfer and change of patta etc. Unless all the remedies are exhausted, the writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court even assuming that the same is maintainable only after the exhaustion of the remedies under the Act. In any event, as far as the case on hand is concerned, the petitioner has not exhausted the revisional remedy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2/3
W.P.(MD)No.5287 of 2021
available under the Act and therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court at this stage.
6.For the above said reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Assistant Registrar (AS)
// True Copy //
/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) mm To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
3.The Sub Collector, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
+1 CC to M/s.S.DEENADHAYALAN, Advocate ( SR-10413[F] dated 11/03/2021 )
+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-10923[F] dated 12/03/2021 )
W.P.(MD)No.5287 of 2021 11.03.2021
AC(CO) KK(01.04.2021) 3P 6C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition in a patta matter can be entertained without exhausting the revisionary remedy under the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983
Whether an effective alternative remedy is available by way of filing a revision before the District Revenue Officer in the present case
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Krishnan
District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur District
Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam
Sub Collector, Kumbakonam
Executive Officer, Sri Saranatha Perumal Temple
V.Parthiban
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
