JUDGMENT 1. The civil revision petition is directed against an order rejecting the plaint, on the ground that there is a bar under section 14 of the Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983, to institute a suit. Section 14 of the said Act is extracted hereunder: "14. Bar of suits:-No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass-book that is maintained under this Act or to have any such entry omitted or amended: Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta pass-book under this Act, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interest to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the patta pass-book shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration." 2. It is the contention of Mr. A.M. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that only a Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue regarding grant of patta and in this context, placed reliance on a recent decision of this court in M/s. GMMCO LIMITED, CHENNAI 16 Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, CHENNAI-9 AND OTHERS, reported in 2012-1-TNLJ 135 (CIVIL). 3. Perusal of the above judgment indicates that there was a dispute with reference to the title of the subject property therein and hence, after considering a catena of decisions, the learned Judge held that the order passed by the Revenue Authorities therein cannot be sustained and further held that as there were disputed facts, the same cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and accordingly, allowed the writ petition, holding that the disputed fact, with reference to title, has to be adjudicated only in the civil proceedings. 4. In the case on hand, though the Tahsildar, Madhavaram vide proceedings in R.C.No.7587/2011/B1 dated 16.09.2011 and 07.10.2011 respectively, has issued notices directing the parties viz., Mr. J.R. Sivagnanam and others, to appear on 27.09.2011 and 24.10.2011 respectively, for an enquiry and to produce documents for considering the application of Mr. 4. In the case on hand, though the Tahsildar, Madhavaram vide proceedings in R.C.No.7587/2011/B1 dated 16.09.2011 and 07.10.2011 respectively, has issued notices directing the parties viz., Mr. J.R. Sivagnanam and others, to appear on 27.09.2011 and 24.10.2011 respectively, for an enquiry and to produce documents for considering the application of Mr. Sivagnanam dated 10.06.2011, and though the revision petitioner has also appeared and submitted his explanation, no orders have been passed by the Tahsildar, Madhavaram, on the application dated 10.06.2011, for grant of patta. 5. In the abovesaid circumstances, the suit has been filed, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvottriyur, for a mandatory direction directing the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur, the second defendant herein, to issue patta, to the plaintiff for the property, situated at Survey No.68/1 in Vadakarai Village Puzhal Madhavaram Taluk, Tiruvallur District admeasuring 0.28 cents or thereabout, within the Registration District of Tiruvallur and Sub Registration District of Madhavaram within the Puzhal Panchayat Union. The plaintiffs have also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 6. Considering the decisions in K.V.SATHYANARAYANAN Vs. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, THIRUVALLUR AND OTHERS reported in 2008(4) TNLJ 602 (Civil) and DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUVANNAMALAI AND OTHERS Vs. JAYASEEPAN reported in 2008(1) MLJ 1012 , the learned District Munsif, Thiruvottriyur, has rejected the plaint, as barred under section 14 of the Tamilnadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983, for brevity, referred to as Act. 7. Section 3 of the Act deals with the issue of patta passbook. Section 11 of the said Act is as follows: "11. Persons to furnish information:-(1) Any person whose rights or interests are required to be, or have been entered in any patta pass-book under this Act shall be bound, on the requisition of the Tahsildar engaged in preparing or modifying the entries in the patta pass-book, to furnish or produce for his inspection within such time as may be specified in such requisition, within such further time as the Tahsildar may, in his discretion allow, all such information or documents needed for the correct preparation or revision thereof as may be within his knowledge or in his possession or power. (2) Where any information is furnished or any document is produced in accordance with the requisition under sub-section(1), the Tahsildar or any officer authorised by him in this behalf shall give a written acknowledgement, thereof to the person furnishing or producing the same and shall endorse on such document a note under his signature stating the fact of its production and the date thereof." 8. As per Section 12 of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order made by the Tahsildar under this Act may, within such period as may be prescribed, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed and the decision of such authority no such appeal shall subject to the provisions of section 13, be final. 9. As per Section 13 of the Act, any officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of District Revenue Officer authorised by the Government, by notification in this behalf for such area as may be specified in the notification, may of his own motion or on the application of a party call for and examine the records of any Tahsildar or appellate authority within his jurisdiction in respect of any proceeding under this Act and pass such orders as he may think fit: Provided that no such order prejudicial to any person shall be made unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making his representation. 10. In exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 22 of the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 (Tamilnadu Act 4 of 1986), the Government have framed Tamilnadu Patta Pass-Book Rules, 1987. The procedure on receipt of an application or information, for grant of patta is dealt with under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Rules, 1987. 11. Reverting to the case on hand, it can be deduced from the pleadings and submissions that though the Tahsildar, Madhavaram Circle, has issued notices stated supra, directing the parties to appear, for taking a decision on the petition dated 10.06.2011, for grant of patta, no order has been passed on the said petition. He has not come to any primafacie conclusion as to the issues that were raised before him. 12. He has not come to any primafacie conclusion as to the issues that were raised before him. 12. Discretion conferred on the Revenue Authority, under Sub Rule 4 of Rule of the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Rules, 1987 has not been exercised so far, as it is evident from the material on record that he has not passed any orders on the application. At this juncture, the revision petitioner cannot presume that the Tahsildar, Madhavaram Circle, has not passed any orders, on the petition submitted by him, only on the premise that there is a dispute relating to title. Apparently, when there is a failure on the part of the authority, to exercise a statutory duty under the Act, the revision petitioner, ought to have preferred a writ petition, seeking for a direction to the Tahsildar to pass orders on his application and in the event of the Tahsildar being satisfied that a dispute regarding the ownership of patta or the personal laws or laws of succession is attracted, he can always direct the concerned parties to obtain the ownership of property, having jurisdiction. If the Tahsildar, has failed to discharge his duties, or arrive at an erroneous conclusion, as to the title or on the basis of material on record, arrives at a conclusion that there was no dispute regarding the ownership or title to the property, for which the patta is sought for, then there is always a remedy under Section 12 of the Act to file an appeal, subject to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. Unless and until, the aspect as to whether there is any dispute with reference to the title of the subject property is adverted and decided by the Revenue Authority, recourse to a civil court for issuance of patta should not be ordinarily entertained. Of course, Proviso to Section 14 of the Act, enables the aggrieved person to institute a suit. For clarity, Section 14 of the Act is reproduced. "14. Of course, Proviso to Section 14 of the Act, enables the aggrieved person to institute a suit. For clarity, Section 14 of the Act is reproduced. "14. Bar of suits:- No suit lies against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass-book that is maintained under this Act or to have any such entry omitted or amended: Provided if any person is aggrieved as to right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta pass-book under this Act, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the patta pass-book shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration." A statutory duty is cast upon the Revenue Authority, to pass orders on the application for issuance of patta and if there is failure to perform such duty, the remedy lies only under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the said revenue authority to exercise his statutory duties. 13. As stated supra, in M/s. GMMCO LIMITED, CHENNAI-16 Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, CHENNAI 9 AND OTHERS, reported in 2012(1) TNLJ 135 (Civil), noticing that there were disputed questions of fact with reference to title, this Court, held that such matters can be agitated only in civil proceedings. 14. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, as stated supra, there is nothing to indicate that the Tahsildar has arrived at any prima facie opinion, as to whether there is any dispute with reference to title. 15. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that there is no prima facie error in rejecting the plaint, on the basis of the decisions in K.V.SATHYANARAYANAN Vs. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, THIRUVALLUR AND OTHERS reported in 2008(4) TNLJ 602 (Civil) and DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUVANNAMALAI AND OTHERS Vs. JAYASEEPAN reported in 2008(1) MLJ 1012 . THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, THIRUVALLUR AND OTHERS reported in 2008(4) TNLJ 602 (Civil) and DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUVANNAMALAI AND OTHERS Vs. JAYASEEPAN reported in 2008(1) MLJ 1012 . Liberty is given to the revision petitioner to approach the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to seek for appropriate directions against the Revenue Authorities, to pass orders on the petition dated 10.06.2011, for grant of patta, within a reasonable time. 16. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.