Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1118 (MAD)

S. Vijay Chakkaravarthi v. District Collector

2014-06-04

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 22.12.2011, in and by which, the second respondent transferred the patta in favour of one Thangaraj, at the instance of the third respondent herein, cancelling the patta stands in the name of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that originally the land in Survey No.42/20 situated in Iluppakudi Group was assigned to one Thangarai in the year 1972 and patta was also issued to him. Subsequently, he sold the said land to one Solaiappan and patta was also transferred in his name. The said Solaiappan sold the said property to one Rajaiah through his power agent Vivekanandan, on 12.09.2002, who in turn, sold the property, having an extent of one acre and 23.70 cents, to the petitioner herein through his power agent Padmanathan, on 17.02.2006 and the remaining extent of 6.30 cents was already sold to one Alagarsamy. After purchase in 2006, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and patta was also transferred in his name in Patta No.2489. While being so, the second respondent passed the impugned order transferring the patta in favour of one Thangaraj and thereby, cancelled the patta issued in the name of the petitioner. Hence, challenging the said order, the Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without issuing notice and without conducting any enquiry, the second respondent passed the impugned order and the same violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner would pray for setting aside the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that there is an alternative remedy available for the petitioner. So, the Writ Petition cannot be maintained. 5. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 6. For better appreciation, it would be worthwhile to extract the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, which reads as follows:- “10. So, the Writ Petition cannot be maintained. 5. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 6. For better appreciation, it would be worthwhile to extract the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, which reads as follows:- “10. Modification of entries in the patta pass-book.- (1) Where any person claims that any modification is required in respect of any entry in the patta pass-book already issued under section 3 either by reason of the death of any person or by reason of the transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any other subsequent change in circumstances, he shall make an application to the Tahsildar for the modification of the relevant entries in the patta pass-book. (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the documents, if any, relied on by the applicant as evidence in support of his claim. (3) (a) Before passing an order on an application under sub-section (1), the Tahsildar shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and shall also give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing. If the Tahsildar decides that any modification should be made in respect of entries in the patta pass-book, he shall pass an order accordingly and shall make such consequential changes in the patta passbook, as appear to him to be necessary, for giving effect to his order. (b) If the Tahsildar decides that there is no case for effecting any modification in the entries in the patta pass-book, he shall reject the application. (c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall contain the reason for such order and shall be communicated to the parties concerned in such manner as may be prescribed. 12. Appeal.- 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 on such appeal shall subject to the provisions of section 13, be final. "13. 12. Appeal.- 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 on such appeal shall subject to the provisions of section 13, be final. "13. Revision.-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.” 7. Similarly, the relevant Rules under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 is extracted below. “12. Application for modification of entries in Patta Pass-Book.-(1) Application for modification of entries in the Patta Pass-Book under Section 10 of the Act shall be in Form - VI and shall be made within ninety days from the date of acquisition of right:- Provided that the Tahsildar may for just and sufficient reasons allow a further period of not exceeding ninety days for making an application for this purpose. (2) The application under sub-rule (1) shall be affixed with court fee labels of Rs.3 towards fee for this purpose. 14. Appeal. - An appeal against any order of the Tahsildar passed under the Act shall be filed before the officer in charge of Revenue Division in whose jurisdiction the property lies within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the order. 15. Revision on application.- (1) An application under section 13 to the District Revenue Officer or such officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf by Notification for revision of an order passed by the Tahsildar or the appellate authority shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of the order. 15. Revision on application.- (1) An application under section 13 to the District Revenue Officer or such officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf by Notification for revision of an order passed by the Tahsildar or the appellate authority shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of the order. (2) The District Revenue Officer or such officer as may be authorised by the Government may admit an application for revision presented after expiry of the period mentioned in sub-rule (1), if he is satisfied that the party had just and sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said period." 8. In the decision in T.R. Dinakaran Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, reported in 2012 (3) CTC 823 , this Hon’ble Court has held as follows: "15. From the reading of the above said provisions under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 and the Rules made thereunder, it could be seen that the Tashildar is the competent authority under Section 10 for modifications of the relevant entries in the Patta Pass Book and such modifications are also possible only under the following circumstances, namely, (i) by reason of the death of any person; or (ii) by reason of the transfer of interest in the land; or (3) by reason of any other subsequent change in circumstances. Therefore, the Tashildar is empowered to make modification of entry in the Patta Pass Book only under those three circumstances as referred above. Even for making such modification based on application filed by the person, the Tashildar is bound to give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing. Thereafter, the Tashildar shall pass an order accordingly, and also make such consequential changes in the Patta Pass Book as appears to be necessary for giving effect to his order. If the Tashildar decides that there is no necessity for effecting any modification, he shall reject the application seeking for modification." 9. Recently, this Court, in W.P.(MD)No.16294 of 2012, dated 04.04.2014 [Amsaveni vs. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai and two others], on a careful consideration of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 and also various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as follows: "15. Recently, this Court, in W.P.(MD)No.16294 of 2012, dated 04.04.2014 [Amsaveni vs. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai and two others], on a careful consideration of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 and also various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as follows: "15. The present Writ Petition is against the order of the first respondent restoring the patta in the name of the fourth respondent. Therefore, in this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court cannot go into the title of the parties. Any opinion by this Court on the validity of the settlement deed and cancellation deed would prejudice the interest of the parties. Already, the fourth respondent filed a Cvil Suit in O.S.No.107/2011 for permanent injunction. But no relief as to title is sought in the suit. On the date of filing the suit, the order of the second respondent was in force. The allowance or dismissal of the suit would also not confer any title over the parties as the appropriate relief would be to file a suit for declaration. 16. Patta is not a document conferring title, unless the same is issued by the Government by way of assignment. When there is a dispute regarding title based on documents and possession, it is only the civil court, which will have jurisdiction. In this case, both the Appellate Authority, the second respondent herein and the Revisional Authority, the first respondent herein have gone into the question of title, which they cannot to do so. If there is a cloud over the title, they must have relegated the parties to approach the Civil Court. In the order impugned, the first respondent has restored the patta in the name of the fourth respondent, which was issued by the third respondent, without hearing the petitioner. 17. In view of the above, the orders of the respondents 1 to 3 are set aside. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are at liberty to take appropriate steps to confirm their title before the competent Civil Court and patta shall be issued by the third respondent to the successful party before the civil court." 10. Upon perusal of the above, it is clear that the second respondent was duty bound to hear all the parties concerned before making any alteration in revenue records. Upon perusal of the above, it is clear that the second respondent was duty bound to hear all the parties concerned before making any alteration in revenue records. If there is any dispute in title, the parties have to be directed to approach the competent Civil Court without any alteration in the patta. Apparently, he has failed to do so. Moreover, the second respondent, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice, passed the impugned order. 11. Having regard to the above stated position, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and the second respondent is directed to issue notice to all the parties concerned and on receipt of proper notices, the parties concerned shall appear before the second respondent along with documentary evidence, so as to prove their respective title and after completion of enquiry, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. Till such time, no one is entitled to claim any right related to patta. 12. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.