Disposed

Palanivel Gounder (Deceased), v. the Special Commissioner and

Madras HC17 Aug 2023WP/40995/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged orders confirming a patta grant and canceling a previous order. The Court held that with pending civil litigation, revenue authorities are incompetent to adjudicate the dispute. The impugned revenue orders were kept in abeyance pending the final disposal of the civil appeal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order confirming the cancellation of the patta was kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the pending Second Appeal in the High Court. Petitioner remains at liberty to apply after the a

Palanivel Gounder (Deceased), Vs the Special Commissioner… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.40995 of 2005

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.40995 of 2005

Palani Gounder

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration,

¶11

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶14

4.Allimuthu ... Respondents

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.40995 of 2005

¶18

Prayer:

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶20

India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order bearing RC.No.G1/12687/05 dated 21.10.2005 on the file

¶21

of the 1^st respondent, confirming the order bearing Na.Ka.No.B8/67564/2003 dated 05.02.2005 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ramakrishnan For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Ramanlaal, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.Krishna Prasad, for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The Writ Petition has been filed against the impugned order bearing RC.No.G1/12687/05 dated 21.10.2005 on the file of the 1^st respondent, confirming the order bearing Na.Ka.No.B8/67564/2003 dated 05.02.2005 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.40995 of 2005

¶28

The petitioner states that the patta was granted in his favour by

¶29

the RDO, Kallakurichi. The 4^th respondent preferred an Appeal before the 2^nd respondent, who in turn set aside the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and accordingly, the patta granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the

¶31

Second Appeal in S.A.No.386 of 2004 is pending before the High Court of Madras.

¶32

Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, if civil litigations are pending between the parties, the revenue authorities are incompetent to grant patta, cancel patta or to mutate the revenue records. The revenue authorities are incompetent to adjudicate the disputes of civil nature, which all are to be resolved through the competent

¶33

Civil Court of law.

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.40995 of 2005

¶37

In the present case, admittedly civil litigation is pending between the parties in Second Appeal in S.A.No.386 of 2004 before the High Court, Madras. While so, the revenue authorities cannot issue any order under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. In such circumstances, the parties are to be relegated to approach the Civil Court of law and all the revenue proceedings are to be kept in abeyance, which would cause no prejudice to either of the parties.

¶38

Mere Patta would not confer any title. Revenue proceedings cannot be considered as a document for the purpose of establishing title. This being the factum, the impugned order in RC.No.G1/12687/05 dated 21.10.2005 on the file of the 1^st respondent, confirming the order bearing Na.Ka.No.B8/67564/2003 dated 05.02.2005 on the file of the 2^nd respondent are kept in abeyance, till such time the Second Appeal has been disposed of by the High Court. After disposal of the Second Appeal and on reaching finality, either of the party is at liberty to submit appropriate application before the competent authority for the purpose of grant of

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.40995 of 2005

¶42

patta, cancellation of patta or to mutate the revenue records, as the case

¶43

may be.

¶44

With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶45

No costs.

¶46

17.08.2023

¶47

skr Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶48

¶49

1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration,

¶50

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶51

2.The District Revenue Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶52

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.40995 of 2005

¶56

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶57

skr

¶58

W.P.No.40995 of 2005

¶59

17.08.2023 3/3

¶60

Page 6 of 6

¶61

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

Palanivel Gounder (Deceased), v. the Special Commissioner and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanivel Gounder (Deceased), v. the Special Commissioner and

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

A.Thangavelu Vs The Special District Revenue officer (Land Acquisition)

K.S.Varadaraj Vs The Assistant Provident commissioner

S.Arunachalam Vs The District Registrar

T.Sagul Hameed Vs Govt.of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its

Allimuthu Vs the Special Commissioner

Sevatha Gounder Vs the Special Commissioner and