Disposed

D.Ramesh v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC21 Dec 2022WP(MD)/18769/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a revenue order cancelling the petitioner's patta and issuing one to a third party. The Court held that revenue authorities cannot decide title disputes, which belong to Civil Courts, and disposed of the petition with an instruction to keep orders in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; orders kept in abeyance; parties directed to Civil Court.

D.Ramesh Vs the District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.18769 of 2013

¶2

0BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :21.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.18769 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013

D.Ramesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.Mr.Jawahar (Died)

¶13

4.R.Muthumani

¶14

5.Kanmani ... Respondents (R4 & R5 are impleaded vide Court order dated 06.12.2022 in W.M.P. (MD).No.17599/2016 in W.P.(MD).No.18796 of 2013 by KBJ)

¶15

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent in Pa.Mu.Pa./2258/2013 dated 03.10.2013, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to restore the patta.

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.18769 of 2013

¶19

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For Respondents :Mr.V.Om.Prakash Government Advocate for R1 & R2 :Mr.N.Mariappan for R4 & R5

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 1^st respondent dated 03.10.2013, wherein, the 1^st respondent had cancelled the patta standing in the name of the petitioner and directed to issue a patta in favour of the 3^rd respondent. Pending this writ petition, the 3^rd respondent had died and respondents 4 and 5 have been impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased/3^rd respondent.

¶22

2.Admittedly, there is a dispute with regard to the title of the property between the petitioner and the private parties in this writ petition. When that be so, the revenue authorities are not entitled to decide the dispute or title between the parties for granting patta under Rule 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 2021. This position of law has been

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.18769 of 2013

¶26

reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported i n 2021 (11 SCC) 98 in the case of (Edelweiss Asset Constructions Company Limited

¶27

Vs- R.Perumalswamy and others).

¶28

3.In the light of the aforesaid pronunciation, I am of the view that when there is a dispute of title, the revenue authorities ought not to have entertained an application for granting of patta. Such a dispute can only be decided by the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the orders passed by the revenue authorities shall be kept in abeyance and the parties to the said orders shall not rely upon them. They are at liberty to approach the Civil Court and seek redressal of their grievances. The Civil Court shall not raise the issue of limitation Civil Court shall exclude the period namely the date of filing of the writ petition and the date of disposal of the writ petition while calculating the period of limitation, as mandated Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963.

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.18769 of 2013

¶32

4.With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed

¶33

of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

21.12.2022

¶35

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order sbn

¶36

¶37

1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶38

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.18769 of 2013

¶42

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶43

sbn

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.18769 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013

¶45

21.12.2022

¶46

Page 5 of 5

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

D.Ramesh v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ramesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pl. Deivanai(Died), Vs the District Revenue Officer

Hemalatha Vs the District Collector

S.Ramalingam, Vs the District Collector

K.Suresh Vs the District Collector

Thirumal Vs the District Collector

M/S.Jayakrishna Flour Mill Vs Chief Good Supervisor