T.R.dinakaran Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer On 29 March, 2012

Madras High Court
Madras High Court

T.R.Dinakaran vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 29 March, 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29/03/2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU
W.P(MD)No.10271 of 2006
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2006
T.R.Dinakaran ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai.
2.The Commissioner,
Aruppukottai Municipality,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District.
3.T.Pitchaiya,
Former R.D.O., Aruppukottai,
Personal Assistant (General)
Collectorate,
Tiruvarur,
Tiruvarur District.
4.V.Suriyan
S/o. Vadivel Murugan,
28A, Nadar West Car Street,
Aruppukottai,
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/162632153/ 1
5.T.R.S.Subbulakshmi,
W/o. Late. T.R.Subbaraj,
52, Pillaimar West Car Street,
Aruppukottai.
6.T.R.S.Vijairam
S/o. T.R.Subbaraj,
Aruppukottai,
7.T.R.S.Balu
S/o. T.R.Subbaraj,
Aruppukottai,
8.T.R.S.Karthikeyan,
S/o. T.R.Subbaraj,
Aruppukottai,
9.T.R.S.Chitra Ramesh,
S/o. T.R.Subbaraj,
Aruppukottai,
10.Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Wing,
Virudhunagar,
... Respondents
Prayer
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for records of the first respondent in Mu.Mu.(A1) 6095/2005 dated 24.07.2006 and quash
the same and issue a direction to the parties to proceed with O.S.No.63 of 2006 on the file of the District
Munsif at Aruppukottai without any reference to the said order and decided the issues on merits.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.T.S.R.Venkataramana
^For Respondents ... Mr.B.Pugalendhi
Spl. Govt. Pleader (R-1 & R-10)
... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar (R-2)
... Mr.A.Sivaji (R-3)
... Mr.M.Sridhar (R-4)
... Mr.R.Devaraj for
Mr.D.Rajendran (R-5 to R-9)
* * * * *
:ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent dated 24.07.2006
and consequently, seeking for a direction to the respondents to conduct O.S.No.63 of 2006, on the file of the
District Munsif at Aruppukottai, without any reference to the said order and decided the issues on merits.
2.The case of the petitioner is that an extent of 2.02 Acres at Survey No.205/4, Aruppukottai village belonged
to him. Out of the total extent of 2.02 Acres, an extent of 82 cents was acquired by the Government for
formation of a bye pass road and the balance extent of 1.20 Acre was reclassified as ward 'F' Block 10,
T.S.No.5/4c1 and ward 'F' Block 10, T.S.No.5/4c2. The said property is in possession and enjoyment of the
petitioner for more than 40 years and patta also stands in the name of the petitioner under patta No.949. When
82 cents of land was acquired, the first respondent herein paid compensation to the petitioner and therefore,
the title over the said property under Survey No.205/4 measuring 1 Acre 20 cents is accepted by the first
respondent and therefore he is estopped from denying it. Likewise an extent of 86 cents at Survey No.205/5
was also acquired for the formation of bye pass road from the husband of the 5th respondent and the father of
the respondents 6 to 9. The petitioner and the father of the respondents 6 to 9, namely, Late. T.R.Subbaraj are
brothers. His brother, namely, one late.T.R.Subbaraj never objected to the payment of compensation to the
petitioner in respect of Survey No.205/4. It is further stated by the petitioner that the 4th respondent
approached the petitioner for the lease of a portion of land at Survey No.205/4 and accordingly, a lease deed
was executed on 02.08.1993. The said lease is for 15 years and the 4th respondent was running a Petrol Bunk,
as tenant of the petitioner. However, the 4th respondent got a sale deed executed in respect of the said
property from the respondents 6 to 8 as if they are the owners of the said property. Therefore, the petitioner
filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai for declaration and
mandatory injunction. However, the respondents 4, 6 to 8 approached the respondents 1 and 2 and sought for
cancellation of patta as well as mutation of the records. The second respondent rightly refused to effect any
mutation on the ground that the civil suit is pending with regard to the title. On the other hand, the first
respondent by way of the impugned order dated 24.07.2006 cancelled the patta which stood in the name of the
petitioner and consequently, granted the patta in favour of the respondents 4, 6, 7 and 8 for survey No.205/4
measuring an extent of 1.20 Acre. Hence, the writ petition is filed by the petitioner. It is also stated by the
petitioner that the 3rd respondent has acted illegally and therefore, an enquiry has to be ordered against him to
be conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, namely, the 10th respondent herein.
3.Notice of motion was ordered by this Court on 16.11.2006 and after notice, the respondents entered
appearance. The first respondent was arrayed in his personal capacity as 3rd respondent. The first respondent
has not filed any counter. However, when this Court has directed the first respondent to produce the file
relating to this case, he filed an affidavit and stated that the file was destroyed in the year 2011, after obtaining
the approval of the Revenue Divisional Officer through his proceedings dated 13.06.2004 as it is the practice
to destroy three years old files.
4.The third respondent filed a counter affidavit and stated that he had discharged his function and co-operated
with the authorities and absolutely there are no motives. In respect of survey Nos.205/4 and 205/5 the petition
was filed on 22.08.2005 and 06.03.2006 seeking transfer of patta. After issuing notice and after considering
the objection filed by the parties, the third respondent passed final order on 24.07.2006. It is also contended by
the third respondent that the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.63 of 2006 is in respect of an extend of 36
cents in survey No.205/4c, whereas, the transfer of patta proceedings relates to total extent of 3.31 Acre
Survey No.205/4 and 5 and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that the civil suit covered the entire property.
He has rendered more than 20 years of service without any adverse orders. Accordingly, the third respondent
is totally an unnecessary party to be impleaded in his individual capacity.
5.The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit and stated that an extent of 2 Acres and 2 cents at survey
No.205/4C belonged to late T.S.Subbaraj, the father of respondents 5 to 9 and the petitioner never owned the
said land at any point of time . The original patta stood in the name of Late T.R.Subbaraj from 1958. The 4th
respondent believed that the petitioner was the owner and consequently, entered into lease agreement on
02.08.1993 and after coming to know that the property does not belong to the petitioner, the 4th respondent
purchased an extent of 59 cents from the respondents 5 to 7 for valuable consideration on 21.06.2001. It is
also contended by the 4th respondent that the Petitioner had already filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 2006 for
declaration and other relief, and the same is pending. It is further contended by the 4th respondent that the
order of the first respondent impugned in this writ petition has not been challenged by way of an appeal.
Moreover, the said order passed by the first respondent was only in pursuant to full fledged enquiry and after
affording opportunity to all the parties concerned. The petitioner having appeared before the first respondent
cannot say that he was deprived of an opportunity before passing of the impugned order.
6.The respondents 5 to 9 filed a counter affidavit and contended that as against the order passed by the first
respondent there is an appeal remedy and without exhausting the same the writ petition filed by the petitioner
is not maintainable. It is further contended by the respondents 6 to 9 that the petitioner never owned property
in Survey Nos.205/4, 205/5 and though the patta No.949 stood in the name of the petitioner for quite some
time, the original patta stood only in the name of the father of the respondents 6 to 9, namely, T.R.Subbaraj
way back in the year 1958. The petitioner having invoked jurisdiction of civil court and filed a declaration
suit, it is not open to the petitioner to maintain the above writ petition. It is further contended by the
respondents 5 to 9 that the first respondent had conducted a full-fledged enquiry and after analysing the
documents filed by both the parties had rightly passed the order thereby cancelling the patta in the name of the
petitioner and granted patta in the name of the respondents 4, 5 to 9.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the owner of survey No.204
measuring an extent of 2 Acre 2 cents, out of which, 82 cents of land was acquired under the Land Acquisition
Act for formation of the bye pass road and the first respondent himself had given the compensation to the
petitioner in respect of survey No.204. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the title
over the survey No.204 in favour of the petitioner had been accepted by the first respondent and consequently,
he is estopped from denying the title of the petitioner and thereby cancelling the patta. The learned Counsel
further argued that the first respondent has got no jurisdiction to decide the title over the property, especially
while dealing with patta proceedings. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
first respondent has got no jurisdiction to transfer the patta or cancel the patta and it is only the Tashildar, who
is empowered under the Patta Pass Book Act to do the same. The learned counsel further argued that as the
order passed by the first respondent himself is without jurisdiction, there is no question of filing any appeal
under the Patta Pass Book Act against the order of first respondent. The learned counsel also further argued
that the 3rd respondent was arrayed in his individual capacity, who was the Revenue Divisional Officer at the
time of passing the present impugned order and he had acted with malice and passed the impugned order on
the eve of his transfer. Therefore, an enquiry has to be conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Department against the 3rd respondent. The learned Counsel also prayed for exemplary cost against the 3rd
respondent. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:-
1. AIR 1954 SC 340 (Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan) 2.2011(2) CWC 242 (Vishwas Footwear Company
Ltd., v. The District Collector and others).
3.AIR 1994 SC 787 (Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta). 4.2000(2) SCC 465 (Chairman,
Railway Board v. Chandrima Das) 5.2010 CIJ 245 (1) (Tamil Sakthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others)
8.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent argued that the
impugned order was made pursuant to the direction issued by the District Collector, based on the
representation made by the parties. The learned Special Government Pleader further argued that the first
respondent has got jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under the Patta Pass Book Act.
9.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 9 argued that the order passed by the first
respondent has to be treated only an order passed in appeal because as against the order passed by the
Tashildar an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, the first respondent has got every
jurisdiction to pass the order impugned in this writ petition. The power to cancel the patta lies with the
Revenue Divisional Officer and therefore, the order passed is presently valid. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel relied on a decision reported in 2011(2) CWC 242 in the matter of Vishwas Footwear
Company Ltd., v. The District Collector and others.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent argued that there are no averments in the affidavit
filed in support of the writ petition with regard to any corruption or malice against the 3rd respondent. The
learned counsel has also argued that the petitioner had not questioned the jurisdiction of the first respondent,
but, on the other hand, he filed objection before him and thereafter, only the impugned order came to be
passed. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner having filed objection before the first
respondent is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for
the 3rd respondent relied on the judgment reported in 2011(2) CWC 242 in the matter of Vishwas Footwear
Company Ltd., v. The District Collector and others. 2011(5) CTC 241 in the matter of C.Sabesan Chettiar vs.
The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District.
11.Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties.
12.In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order of the first respondent dated 24.07.2006. In the said
order, the first respondent has cancelled the patta standing in the name of the petitioner in respect of Survey
No.205/4 and consequently, transferred the patta in the name of the respondents 4 to 9. While passing the said
order, the first respondent has found that the petitioner has not produced any document of title in support of
his claim over the said property. In this case, admittedly, a patta was standing in the name of the petitioner
under Patta No.949 in respect of survey No.205/4. The said patta was cancelled by the first respondent by the
impugned proceedings and consequently, the respondents 4 to 9 were granted patta in respect of the said
property. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the first respondent has got no
jurisdiction to pass the present impugned order. Therefore, the point for consideration in this writ petition is as
to whether the first respondent as the Revenue Divisional Officer has jurisdiction to cancel the patta granted in
favour of the petitioner and consequently, to grant the patta in favour of the respondents 4 to 9?
13.For proper appreciation of the power conferred on various authorities under the Tamil Nadu Patta
Pass-Book Act, 1983, it is relevant to refer Sections 10, 12 and 13 which are 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 pass-book, 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.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 appellant 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."
14.Likewise the relevant Rules under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987, namely, Rules 12, 14 and
15 are reproduced hereunder:-
"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.
(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."
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.
16.Section 12 of the said Act contemplates an appeal against an order made by the Tashildar under the said
Act. Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1997, states that the Revenue Divisional Officer is the
appellate authority to hear the appeal to be preferred under Section 12. Section 13 contemplates further
revision to the Revenue Divisional Officer either on the application of a party or in his own motion.
17.From the discussion of the above provisions relating to the powers conferred on the Revenue Authorities, it
could be seen that the Revenue Divisional Officer, namely, the first respondent herein can exercise the power
only as an appellate authority under Section 12 that too as against an order passed by the Tashildar either
under section 10 or any other provision under the said Act. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by
the first respondent dated 24.07.2006, it is seen that the first respondent has not passed the order as an
appellate authority by exercising his power under Section 12. On the other hand, he has passed the order only
as an original authority pursuant to a representation given before District Collector by the respondents. It is
needless to say that neither District Collector nor the respondents herein can confer the power on the first
respondent, which is otherwise not available to him under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. Though
the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent has argued that the order passed by the first respondent
has to be treated only as an appellate order, a very reading of the order passed by the first respondent would
show that the same was not passed against any order passed by the Tashildar and on the other hand, the first
respondent had exercised the power as the original authority by taking the role of the Tashildar while such
power was not conferred by statute. Therefore, it could be seen that the power exercised by the first
respondent in passing the impugned order is not conferred under the Act and consequently, the same is the
one passed without jurisdiction.
18.Even in respect of the power for cancellation of Patta is concerned, section 10 contemplates only
modification of entries in the Patta Pass Book Act under three circumstances as referred supra. In my
considered view cancellation of Patta cannot be termed as modification of an entry. That is why section 10
deals with only under three circumstances, namely, death of any person, transfer of interest in the land and
any other subsequent change in the circumstances. Section 10 does not contemplate any eventuality in respect
of rival claim over the title to the property. Section 14 of the said Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 takes
care of such circumstances where the proviso to section 14 contemplates filing a civil suit by any person if he
is aggrieved against any entry made in the Patta Pass Book with regard to any right of which he is in
possession. Section 14 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:-
"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 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."
19.In view of the proviso to section 14, if any person is aggrieved over the entry made in the patta pass book
in respect of any property over which he claims title and also possession, he can only file a suit for declaration
of his right and thereafter, the entry in the patta pass book can be amended in accordance with any such
declaration made by the competent civil court. In this case, admittedly, the patta was standing in the name of
the petitioner under patta No.949. The petitioner claims title over the property and equally, the respondents 4
to 9 also claim the same. If that is the position, the proper course for the respondents 4 to 9 is to go before the
competent civil court and file a civil suit for declaration. Without doing so they cannot agitate the matter
before the first respondent straight away seeking for cancellation of patta standing in the name of the
petitioner and consequently, seeking for grant of patta in their name. In any event, the petitioner herein has
already filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 2006 before the District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai and same is
pending. It is also an admitted fact that all these respondents are party respondents in the said suit. Therefore,
in respect of the dispute over the title to the property, already a civil suit is filed before the competent civil
court. Only when a decree is granted, the Revenue Authority can act according to the decree and make
necessary changes in the patta pass book. While that being the position, the first respondent is not justified in
passing the impugned order. It is needless to say that neither the first respondent nor any other Revenue
Authority has got any power or jurisdiction to confer the title of the properties on any person while
considering an application for grant of patta or for cancellation of patta. In this connection, it is useful to refer
the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2011(2) CWC 242 cited supra at
paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 are as follows:- "9. The Patta Pass Book scheme was introduced in order to
ensure that all pattadars of land get pass books, giving up to date details of their holdings and that the patta
pass book serves as an effective instrument for revenue administration. For obtaining such patta, an applicant
has to prima facie satisfy with the documents or any other information relating to the land to the Tahsildar for
his determination and on such determination, the Tahsildar not only makes necessary entries in respect of the
land concerned in the Register of Patta Pass Book maintained in the office of the Tahsildar, but also for the
purpose of issuing patta pass book to the owner or the person concerned. The entries in the patta pass book
shall be presumed to be true and correct until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted.
10. The patta pass book relating to a particular land shall be produced before the registering authority as
defined under sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Act for the purpose of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange,
settlement or otherwise. Unless the patta pass book is produced, the registering authority shall refuse to
register the land in terms of Section 5 of the Act. In the event a document is registered after the patta pass
book is produced and a certified extract of entries relating to such transfer is produced before the Tahsildar
concerned in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 5, the Tahsildar shall cause necessary changes to be carried
out in the patta pass book already issued under Section 3 and issue a new patta pass book after sub-division is
necessary.
11. A reading of the above provisions show that an owner or person who has been issued with the patta, if
transfers the land by way of sale, gift, etc., and for that purpose registers the same before the registering
authority, the person who is the beneficiary of that document can approach the Tahsildar for necessary entries
relating to transfer in the patta pass book. In order to find out as to the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar under
sub-section (3) of Section 5, we must read Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 That rule
contemplates that the Tahsildar shall carry out necessary changes in the Register of Patta Pass Books
maintained by him within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the certified extracts or the entries of
transfers under section 5(2) from the registering authority or a report under section 7 after satisfying himself
as to the correctness of the particulars contained therein. Hence, the necessary changes would be only in
respect of the registration of alienation or transfer in the patta pass book as enumerated in section 5, which
does not contemplate making necessary entries by cancelling the patta without there being any transfer of sale,
gift, mortgage etc., of the land in question by the parties in whose name the patta pass book stands registered.
This provision does not empower the Tahsildar to cancel the patta pass book granted in favour of
person/persons on an application by any other third party.
12. The only provision available for modification of the entries in the patta pass book is Section 10, which
reads as under:-
"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
pass-book, 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 reasons for such order and shall be communicated
to the parties concerned in such manner as may be prescribed."
By that provision, in the event any modification is required on an application by any person, it can be made
either by reason of the death of any person or by reason of transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any
subsequent change in the circumstances. This section also does not empower the Tahsildar to cancel the patta
already granted, as the power of the Tahsildar to modify the entries in the patta pass book is limited only in
case of death of the person who was holding the patta pass book or by reason of the transfer of interest in the
land or by reason of any other subsequent change in the circumstances. In the event an application is made
that the patta pass book has been wrongly issued in favour of any person and consequently claiming title over
the land entitling such person to grant of patta, that person can only file a suit for declaration that the entries
made in the patta pass book should be cancelled and consequently for a mandatory injunction for grant of
patta."
20.Likewise, another decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2011(5) CTC 241, at
paragraphs 30 and 36 are as follows:- "30.From a reading of Rule 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass
Book Rules, it is clear that if the Tahsildar is satisfied that a dispute concerning ownership of patta is already
pending in a Court or issues are raised before him which impinge on personal laws or laws of succession and
all the parties interested do not agree on the ownership in writing, he shall direct the concerned parties to
obtain a ruling on ownership from a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction before changing the entries
already recorded and existing in the various Revenue Records. The Learned Single Judge, in paragraph No.19
of the order, had specifically held that in terms of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4, the First Respondent / District
Revenue Officer ought to have directed the parties to go before the competent Civil Forum for adjudication of
dispute with regard to the ownership, as the Fourth Respondent/Writ Petitioner and the Deceased Appellant /
Fourth Respondent disputes the version projected by each one of them.
36.On a careful consideration of the factual position presented in the instant case and in the light of the
qualitative and quantitative discussions mentioned supra, we have no hesitation to hold that the dispute
between the parties relates to title of the lands measuring an extent of 7.18 acres in S.F.Nos.547 and 548,
Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District and the proper forum for the parties to agitate and ventilate their
grievances in respect of their title to the said property is only before the competent Civil Forum. As such, we
come to an inevitable conclusion that the Learned Single Judge had rightly held that it is open to the Fourth
Respondent/Writ Petitioner and the Deceased Appellant/Fourth Respondent to work out their remedies before
the competent Civil Forum in accordance with law. We are also of the considered view that the dispute
between the Fourth Respondent/Writ Petitioner and the Deceased Appellant/Fourth Respondent is one of both
mixed question of fact and law, which needs to be gone into in detail by means of adducing oral and
documentary evidence by examining witnesses as the case may be and the only course open to the parties is to
approach the competent Civil Court. "
21.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in AIR 1954 SC 340 in the matter of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan to substantiate his contention
that if an order is passed without jurisdiction, it is nullity. The relevant paragraph 6 of the said judgment is
extracted hereunder:-
6. The answer to these contentions must depend on what the position in law is when a court entertains a suit or
an appeal over which it has no jurisdiction, and what the effect of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is on
that position. It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction
is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied
upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is
pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very
authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. If the
question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles
governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was coram non judice, and that
its judgment and decree would be nullities. The question is what is the effect of Section 11 of the Suits
Valuation Act on this position.
22.In view of the categorical pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court as cited
supra, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is unsustainable as the same was passed without
jurisdiction and consequently, the same is set aside and the parties are directed to get their dispute adjudicated
upon by the competent civil Court. Once their title to property is decided and declared by the competent Civil
Court, thereafter, it is open to the parties to approach the competent authority under the Patta Pass Book Act
for effecting necessary entries in the patta as contemplated under the said Act.
23.Since I have decided the matter on the question of jurisdiction alone, I need not refer the other citation
relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Insofar as the prayer made by the
petitioner for ordering an enquiry against the 3rd respondent by the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption
Department is concerned, there is absolutely no averments made against the 3rd respondent except by saying
that he has acted illegally and passed the impugned order on the eve of transfer.
24.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though relied on the decision reported in AIR 1994 SC
787, 2000(2) SCC 465, 2010 CIJ 245, (cited supra) in support of his contention that the petitioner is entitled to
get heavy compensation as against the act of the 3rd respondent by passing the impugned order, in the absence
of any specific and material averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit supported by any other
documents to substantiate that the 3rd respondent had acted with malice, the above decisions relied on by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are not supporting his case for compensation. Therefore, in my
considered view, the petitioner has not made out any case for ordering such enquiry. At any event that is not
the prayer made in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set
aside. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. skn
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai.
2.The Commissioner,
Aruppukottai Municipality,
Aruppukottai,
3.Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Wing,
Virudhunagar,

T.R.dinakaran Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer On 29 March, 2012

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

T.R.dinakaran Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer On 29 March, 2012

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Madras High Court

Madras High Court

Вам также может понравиться