Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1060 (MAD)

A. Jenasenan v. District Revenue Officer

2012-02-28

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the District Revenue Officer, viz., the first respondent herein, to dispose of the Appeal, dated 16th June, 2010, on merits, after hearing the parties. 2. The petitioner, along with two others, purchased land, measuring 22.240 sq.ft., comprised in S.No.414/1, which is part of Mylapore Division, Block No.8, Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Madras District from Mr.T.V.Hari and others, vide a registered sale deed, dated 24.07.2006. The sale deed was registered, as Document No.2294 of 2006 with the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore. The petitioner, after purchase of the property, approached the Revenue Authorities, for grant of patta. The Revenue Authorities sub-divided the land in S.Nos.414/26 and 414/27, in two parts, measuring 823 sq.ft and 16089 sq.ft., respectively, with respect to the remaining land, measuring 5324 sq.ft. also, the petitioner requested the Revenue Authorities, on 28th April, 2008, for grant of patta. 3. The Tahsildar, vide order dated 08.09.2008, informed the petitioner that the patta can be issued in his favour, only if he gives his consent to have the name included along with the Thiru T.V.Hari and one Mr.M.Nandagopal, viz., the third respondent herein. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in this Court, i.e., W.P.No.29543 of 2008, praying for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Tahsildar, to grant patta of the land, measuring 5324 sq.ft. The Writ Petition was dismissed. The petitioner, preferred a Writ Appeal, being W.A.No.1329 of 2009, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, issued a direction to the Tahsildar to enquire as to the entitlement of patta and pass fresh orders. The Tahsildar was also directed to pass order, within 30 days, of the receipt of the certified copy of the order passed in W.A.No.1329 of 2009. 5. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench, The Tahsildar, vide order dated 24th February, 2010, directed the petitioner, to prefer an Appeal to the first respondent, on the ground that, the transfer of patta could not be cancelled by the Tahsildar, as it can be done only by the District Revenue Officer. In compliance with the order of the Tahsildar, the petitioner has filed Statutory Appeal, before the District Revenue Officer. 6. In compliance with the order of the Tahsildar, the petitioner has filed Statutory Appeal, before the District Revenue Officer. 6. The case of the petitioner is that, though the Appeal is pending with the first respondent, no decision has been taken, till date. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking aforementioned relief. 7. The Writ Petition is opposed by the respondents, by filing a counter affidavit, on the ground that transfer of patta can be ordered by the Tahsildar, on an application moved under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Appeal against decision, lies to Revenue Divisional Officer (for short 'R.D.O.') and not to the District Revenue Officer (in short 'D.R.O.'). 8. The submissions in the counter is that, the Appeal filed by the petitioner is not competent under the Act, therefore, no Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, can be issued, to direct the respondent No.1, to decide the appeal, for want of jurisdiction of the first respondent, to entertain and try the Appeal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, contends that the stand of the respondents cannot be accepted, as the land is not an agricultural land, therefore, the provisions of the Act, are not applicable. 10. The case of the petitioner is that the change of patta, in case of non-agricultural land, is covered by the Board Standing Orders No.31, Rules for the Transfer of Registry of Holdings. The relevant order reads as under:- "To whom applications should be made:- Applications for transfer of registry may be made to the Collector or the Divisional Officer or the Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar of the taluk or sub taluk or the Taluk Head Accountant or the Revenue Inspector of the Firka, in which the land, the registry of which it is sought to change, is situated, or to Registration Officers when conveyances are presented for registration. On the death of the registered holder, the Karnam of the Village should at once report the fact to the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar, within whose jurisdiction, the Village is situated, with the names of heirs of the deceased so far as he can make them out. On the death of the registered holder, the Karnam of the Village should at once report the fact to the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar, within whose jurisdiction, the Village is situated, with the names of heirs of the deceased so far as he can make them out. The Collector, the Divisional Officer, the Tahsildar, or Deputy Tahsildar, may finally dispose of all cases of Transfer, however arising, and direct changes or registry either of his own motion or on the enquiry and report of an Officer not lower in rank than a Revenue Inspector. There is no right of appeal in cases of transfers of registry ordered by a Tahsildar or a Deputy Tahsildar. The Divisional Officer and Collector may, however, in the exercise of their general powers of revision, entertain revision petitions at any time against the orders of their subordinates in such cases and should do so when there is any likelihood of Government being involved in a civil suit. A Revenue Inspector after making personal inquiry in the Village, where the land is situated, may dispose of such of the petitions presented to him and also such of the outstanding cases of transfer ascertained by him as provided in paragraph 5 (ii) supra as do not involve the formation of new subs-divisions and about which there is no dispute. Disputed cases and cases involving sub-divisions should be submitted to the Tahsilar or the Deputy Tahsildar, as the case may be, for orders. Similarly, a Revenue Inspector will not dispose of applications for transfer of registry of enfranchised minor inams, if they involve sub-divisions of jodi quit-rent." 11. On consideration, this Court finds that the Tahsildar was not correct in ordering the petitioner to file an Appeal before the District Revenue Officer, as the remedy available with the petitioner, as per the Board Standing Order, will be, to file a Revision Petition, before the Collector/State Government, against the inaction of the Tahsildar, in not considering the request of the petitioner. Even in case change of patta is covered under the Act, Appeal will lie to R.D.O., and not to the D.R.O. 12. Once the first respondent is not a competent Authority to decide the Appeal, no useful purpose would be served by issuing a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the Appeal. 13. Even in case change of patta is covered under the Act, Appeal will lie to R.D.O., and not to the D.R.O. 12. Once the first respondent is not a competent Authority to decide the Appeal, no useful purpose would be served by issuing a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the Appeal. 13. The only order, which can be passed is, that the Appeal, being not competent, should have been returned to petitioner for presentation in appropriate forum. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a direction, as prayed for by the petitioner, for want of jurisdiction of first respondent to deal with the Appeal. 14. Consequently, this Writ Petition is ordered to be dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner, to workout his remedy , by filing a Revision Petition before the Collector, against the order of the Tahsildar or avail other available remedy. 15. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.