Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1295 (MAD)

Manickam Pillai v. District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram

2016-03-24

B.RAJENDRAN

body2016
ORDER : The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent in Pa.Mu.52393/2013(B6) dated 24.12.2014. 2. The only ground which has been raised by the petitioner is that the respondents 4 to 9 are at loggerheads regarding the title over the property. In fact, a counter has been filed to the effect that there is a dispute regarding the title. The District Revenue Officer who decided the application for patta, has no power to decide the title dispute. The title can be decided only by the civil Court. Now, he contended that he preferred to go before the civil Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents only stated that the authority has measured the property and sub-divided the property in accordance with their entitlement. Therefore, there is nothing wrong. 4. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., Chennai 600 032 rep. by Director V.Ravi Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram and others reported in (2012) 1 MLJ 566 , wherein, it has been clearly stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer while considering an application for cancellation of patta is not competent to adjudicate the question of title and cancel the patta and the applicant has to be directed to approach the civil Court to establish the title and the acts of cancellation of patta by the Revenue Divisional Officer and issuance of patta in favour of another person are acts without jurisdiction. 5. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to file a civil suit for declaration as against the respondents. At the time of trial, the civil Court shall take into consideration the documents, facts and circumstances of the case and pass orders independently, de hors, any observations in the order of the District Revenue Officer. The order of the District Revenue Officer is not quashed. 6. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.