Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1189 (MAD)

L. R. Vijai v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2014-06-07

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased land, measuring an extent of 1.44 Acre in Survey No.236/1 in Vadakarai Village from one Parvatham Vakayara, vide sale deed, dated 21.11.2005, and put up church with compound wall in the said property. In the year 2008, the third respondent herein submitted an application before the first respondent seeking cancellation of patta, which stood in the name of the petitioner. The first respondent, vide his proceedings, dated 29.03.2009, called upon the third respondent to appear for enquiry and directed to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. When the matter stood thus, the third respondent, once again, submitted a representation, on 19.01.2010. On the basis of the said representation, the first respondent called upon the petitioner, his vendor and the third respondent to appear for an enquiry, on 03.02.2010. The petitioner also appeared for the enquiry and gave his objections orally. However, the first respondent, without considering the earlier proceedings, dated 29.03.2009, by order, dated 25.03.2010, directed inclusion of the names of respondents 3 to 6 herein and issuance of joint patta and the name of the petitioner was directed to be deleted. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. The first respondent, before cancelling the patta, has not afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that in respect of the very same property, seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner, a Civil Suit in O.S.No.223 of 2013, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, has been filed and the same is pending. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the first respondent, on a careful consideration of the materials available on record, passed the impugned order, cancelling the patta issued in favour of the petitioner, directing to make certain entries. He further submits that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the first respondent, he can very well agitate the same before the Competent Civil Court, as the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 5. 4. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 5. This Court, in a very recent pronouncement in W.P.(MD)No.2951 of 2010, dated22.04.2010, considering the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and various Judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "In the decision in T.R.Dinakaran Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, reported in 2012 (3) CTC 823 , this Court has held as follows: "15. From the reading of the above said provisions under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1993 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." 8. The present Writ Petition is against the order of the first respondent – The District Revenue Officer, cancelling the patta stood in the name of the petitioner, restoring the patta in the name of one P.Chakrapani Alwar and 37 others. Therefore, in this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court cannot go into the title of the parties. Already, seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner, Civil Suits in O.S.No.135 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Valangaiman and O.S.No.653 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, have been filed and the same are pending. 9. Patta is not a document conferring title, unless the same is issued by the Government by way of assignment. 9. 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. If there is a cloud over the title, the first respondent must have relegated the parties to approach the Civil Court. In the order impugned, the first respondent cancelled the patta issued in the name of the petitioner and made certain entries, without hearing the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 25.03.2010, passed by the first respondent is set aside. The petitioner and the respondents 3 to 6 are at liberty to take appropriate steps to confirm their title before the competent Civil Court and patta shall be issued by the first respondent to the successful party before the Civil Court. 7. The Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.