Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 524 (MAD)

Thotte Gowde v. District Collector

2014-02-27

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
Judgment : 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing Respondents 1 to 3 herein to cancel the patta issued in favour of the 4th and 5th Respondent's father and consequently to issue patta in his favour for an extent of 5 cents in Survey No.30/6 situated at Kodithimmanapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, within the time to be stipulated by this Court based on the representation dated 12.09.2011. 2. According to the Petitioner, the land measuring an extent of 10 cents comprised in S.No.30/6 situated at Kodithimmanapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, was originally belonged to his father Varadappa, as evidenced by Village 'A' Register Extract issued in the year 1960. His father was in possession and enjoyment of the said land till his death. His father Varadappa sold an extent of 5 cents out of 10 cents in S.No.30/6 to one Kullamuniappa through a registered sale deed dated 25.06.1971 [bearing document No.1641/1971] in the office of the Sub Registrar, Hosur. His father retained the balance 5 cents of land with him. However, in the UDR Scheme patta was wrongly issued in favour of the aforesaid Kullamuniappa, measuring an extent of 10 cents in S.No.30/6 instead of 5 cents. As a matter of fact, the patta was issued in favour of his father for the entire extent of 10 cents in respect S.No.30/6 [vide patta No.54] on earlier occasion. 3. In the month of August, 2011, the Petitioner approached the Nationalised Banks and Financial Institutions for availing loan with a view to develop the said land of 5 cents by putting up a construction. But shock and surprise, he came to know that the said fact of wrong issue of patta in favour of the said Kullamuniappa and the bank officials had instructed him to obtain a computerised patta in respect of 5 cents in Survey No.30/6 in his name otherwise the loan application would not be processed any further. 4. The plea of the Petitioner is that he sent a representation dated 12.09.2011 to the Respondents 1 to 3 by RPAD seeking to cancel the wrong patta issued in favour of Kullamuniappa for an extent of 10 cents in S.No.30/6 and issue a fresh patta in his favour for an extent of 5 cents in S.No.30/6, but they had not taken any action so far. 5. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 that the Petitioner has to approach the competent Revenue Authorities and it is for the concerned Authority/Authorities under the Act to deal with the representation dated 12.09.2011 of the Petitioner in terms of ingredients of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Rules, 1987 made thereunder. In the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 is that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner prima facie not maintainable in law. 6. However, the Learned Counsel for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents contends that it is false on the part of the Petitioner to allege that the UDR patta was wrongly given to his father Kullamuniappa to an extent of 10 cents of land and in fact, the patta was rightly granted for 10 cents of land in the name of Kulla Muniappa and further, without waiting for the concerned authorities to pass an order on his alleged representation dated 12.09.2011, the Petitioner in a pre-matured fashion has approached this Court by filing the present Writ of Mandamus, which is not maintainable ex facie in the eye of law. 7. This Court had heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 and the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 4 and 5. 8. At this juncture, on perusal of the contents of the representation of the Petitioner dated 12.09.2011, this Court latently and patently indicates that the Petitioner has addressed the Respondents 1 to 3 claiminginter alia that the patta wrongly issued in respect of S.No.30/6 to an extent of 5 cents and to be cancelled and the same should be changed in his favour. 9. In this connection, this Court relevantly points out that the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act 1983 and Rules 1987 made thereunder are self-contained and inbuilt one. Also that, Section 3 of the Act deals with 'Issue of patta pass-book'; Section 5 deals with 'Making of entries of registration of alienation or transfer in the patta pass-book'. 10. Section 6 is concerned with 'Entries in the patta pass-book to be prima facie evidence of title'. Section 10 enjoins 'Modification of entries in the patta pass-book'. Section 11 of the Act speaks of 'Persons to furnish information'. 10. Section 6 is concerned with 'Entries in the patta pass-book to be prima facie evidence of title'. Section 10 enjoins 'Modification of entries in the patta pass-book'. Section 11 of the Act speaks of 'Persons to furnish information'. In Section 12 provides, a remedy of filing an appeal to an individual if he is aggrieved by an order passed by the Tahsildar concerned. In terms of Section 13 of the Act, a Revision will lie before the District Revenue Officer authorised by the Government as against the order in appeal by the competent authority. 11. It is to be borne in mind that Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983 and Rules 1987, deals with 'Bar of suits' and the same is extracted as under: "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." 12. As far as the present case is concerned, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the Writ of Mandamus on the ground that the Respondents 1 to 3 had not considered his representation dated 12.09.2011 till date [relating to his request for cancellation of patta issued in favour of Respondents 4 and 5, etc.] On going through the contents of the affidavit filed by the Petitioner and also after perusing the tenor and spirit of the representation made by the Petitioner, it is not per se maintainable before this Court. Further more, this Court is of the view that in terms of relevant ingredients of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983 and Rules 1987, the Petitioner has available an effective, efficacious and alternative remedy by approaching concerned authorities prescribed under the said Act. Further more, this Court is of the view that in terms of relevant ingredients of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983 and Rules 1987, the Petitioner has available an effective, efficacious and alternative remedy by approaching concerned authorities prescribed under the said Act. That apart, the said Act 4 of 1986 and the Rules, made thereunder provides complete and comprehensive remedies available to the petitioner. As such, it is for the Petitioner to avail such remedies to the optimum level or to his maximum advantage. In short, the Petitioner, without exhausting the remedy under Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act 1983 and the Rules 1987, cannot approach this Court by way of Writ of Mandamus and consequently, the Writ Petition fails. 13. In the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Both the parties do bear their own costs. It is made clear that the dismissal of the present Writ Petition will not preclude the petitioner to approach the competent authorities in the manner known to law and in accordance with law to seek appropriate remedy thereon. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to raise all factual and legal pleas before the concerned authorities.