Allowed

A.R.K.N. Arunachalam, v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC19 Dec 2022WP(MD)/3236/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that Revenue Authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes. Setting aside orders passed in violation of Rule 4(4) when a civil suit regarding title was pending, the Court directed the Thasildar to update mutation entries based on a final decreed civil suit declaring a sale deed void.

What did the court decide?

Orders of Respondents 1 to 3 set aside; Respondent 3 directed to carry out mutation based on the civil court judgment and decree in O.S.No.93 of 2011.

A.R.K.N. Arunachalam, Vs the District Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.3236 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :19.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3236 of 2013 and

¶7

M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013

¶8

A.R.K.N.Arunachalam ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.The Thasildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶13

4.A.Justin Arockiam ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent herein in Na.Ka.P1/8942/2012, dated 31.12.2012, and quash the same.

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.3236 of 2013

¶18

For Petitioner :Mr.G.Mohan Kumar For Respondents :Mr.G.Siva Raja Government Advocate for R1 to R3 :Mr.A.L.Kannan for R4

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition had been filed challenging the order passed by

¶21

the Revenue Authorities and for grant of patta.

¶22

The petitioner and the 4^th respondent claimed title to the

¶23

properties. The order impugned also regards a civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent. Without waiting for the outcome of the civil dispute, the respondents 1 to 3 have been exercising their power, contrary to the provision of Rule 4(4) of Patta Pass Book Act.

¶24

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement reported in (2021) 11

¶25

SCC 98 in the case of Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Limited Vs.

¶26

R.Perumalswamy and Others had held as follows:

¶27

“19. Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass

¶28

Book Act, 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987, the Tahsildar is not empowered

¶29

Page 2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.3236 of 2013

¶32

to adjudicate upon a “title dispute”. A combined reading of Section 14 and Rule 4(4) indicates that where there exists a dispute with respect to ownership of a land between parties with respect to a patta entry, the correct procedure to be adopted is to approach a civil court having competent jurisdiction. The entry records will be updated on the basis of the decree of the civil Court upon adjudication.”

¶33

It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.93 of 2011, seeking for a declaration to declare the sale deed executed in favour of the 4^th respondent as null and void, apart from other relief, the said suit had been decreed ex-parte.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

¶35

said decree has become final between the parties and no appeal has been filed by the 4^th respondent.

¶36

Page 3 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.3236 of 2013

¶39

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent submitted that he is unable to contact the 4^th respondent as of today with regard to the judgement and decree in respect of the sale deed, through which the 4^th respondent claims title.

¶40

In view of the judgement referred supra, the orders of the respondents 1 to 3 are set aside as having been passed in violation of Rule 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules and the 3^rd respondent is directed to carry out the appropriate mutation based on the judgement and decree of the Civil Court in O.S.No.93 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶41