Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
A.S.Muthuswamy & Others - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6527 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.Nos. 8398 and 8399 of 2003
Decided On : 13 March 2003
Patta - Property Dispute - Kuppuswami Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer, 1995-1 M.L.J. 426 - The court held that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the question of title regarding immovable property cannot be gone into because a mass of evidence may be required for adjudicating the question of title. The question of title has to be decided by the Civil Court without reference to the order passed by the other Authorities, including the Revenue Authority. Reliance on patta cannot be made to prove title as patta which mutates entries cannot have or distinguish right over property.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order of the second respondent-Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk granting Patta in C.A.No. 1033 of 2001 dated 24-12-2001. The properties covered in the impugned Patta stand in the name of late A.K. Ranganathan, and the first petitioner's name is reflected in the Town Survey Register as on 30-6-2000. The petitioners sought to quash the Patta issued in favor of the third respondent company without including the name of the first petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no ground for interference with the Patta issued by the second respondent in favor of the third respondent, and dismissed the Writ Petition with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the Revenue Authorities after getting an order in the civil proceedings which they have already initiated.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the Patta issued in favor of the third respondent company without including the name of the first petitioner, who was legally entitled to have the Patta jointly along with the third respondent company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the question of title regarding immovable property cannot be gone into because a mass of evidence may be required for adjudicating the question of title. The question of title has to be decided by the Civil Court without reference to the order passed by the other Authorities, including the Revenue Authority. Reliance on patta cannot be made to prove title as patta which mutates entries cannot have or distinguish right over property.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the Revenue Authorities after getting an order in the civil proceedings which they have already initiated.
By consent of all the parties main Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The petitioners challenge the order of the second respondent-Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk granting Patta in C.A.No. 1033 of 2001 dated 24-12-2001.
2. Heard Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned senior counsel for the petitioners; Mr. D. Krishnakumar, Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2; and Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel for the third respondent.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that Revenue records clearly show that the properties covered in the impugned Patta stand in the name of late A.K. Ranganathan. Further, the Town Survey Register as in June, 2000, reflects the Block No.27, T.S.No.3, which correlates to Survey Nos. 230 part, 231 (part) and 227 (part) covering a total extent of land 8.73.000 Hectares are under the possession and enjoyment of the third respondent company along with the first petitioner herein. While so, it is stated by the petitioner that without considering the existing records, the second respondent issued a Patta in favour of the third respondent company alone in C.A.No. 1033 of 2001 dated 24-12-2002 for the properties comprised in Block No.27, T.S.No.3, without including the name of the first petitioner whose name is reflected in the Town Survey Register as on 30-6-2000. They came to know about the issuance of Patta in favour of the third respondent company only when a dispute arose regarding Agreement of Sale entered into between the third respondent company with one M/s. Aishwarya Promoters for the sale of the property. The petitioners and the legal heirs of (late) A.R. Swaminathan and his wife (late) A. Lakshmi have filed C.S.No. 67 of 2003 before this Court seeking partition of their 1/3 share in the residuary properties remained un-partitioned in the Hindu Undivided Family. Inasmuch as the respondent company has granted Patta in favour of third respondent without notice to the first petitioner, who is legally entitled to have the patta jointly along with the third respondent company, the same is invalid, void, abinitio and has to be quashed.
4. Pursuant to the notice, the third respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, disputing the claim of the petitioners. After furnishing details regarding various properties, it is stated that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition in C.S.No. 67 of 2003 before this Court and the third respondent is defending the suit on merits and on the grounds that there is no property available for partition. The third respondent has also furnished details regarding various sale deeds how the third respondent had acquired the properties. Inasmuch as the petitioners have already proceeded against the third respondent in the said civil suit and they (petitioners) are yet to establish their rights, they are not entitled to maintain the present writ petition.
5. Both the first petitioner and the third respondent in their respective affidavit and counter affidavit have furnished the factual details elaborately regarding various properties, the title deeds, entries in the Government records, possession etc. The main grievance of the petitioners is that inasmuch as the first petitioner is legally entitled to have Patta jointly along with the third respondent, in view of entries in many documents, including the Government records, the third respondent ought to have issued notice to the first petitioner before granting Patta exclusively to the third respondent. Admittedly, the petitioners and the legal heirs of late A.R. Swaminathan and his wife A. Lakshmi have filed a Civil Suit in C.S.No. 67 of 2003 before the Original Side of this Court praying for partition of 1/3 share in the residuary properties. According to the third respondent, they are contesting the suit on merits and on the grounds that there is no property available for partition. In such a circumstance, inasmuch as the petitioners have approached the Civil Court after getting decree
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
