Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
R. Mohan Ranganathan & Another
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 21450 of 2008 & 15851 of 2009 & M.P.No. 1 of 2008 in W.P.No. 21450 of 2008 & M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2009 in W.P.No. 15851 of 2009
Decided on : 21-12-2009
REVENUE - PATTADAR - CLAIM FOR PATTADARSHIP - REJECTION OF CLAIM - VALIDITY - STANDING ORDERS OF THE BOARD OF REVENUE - BSO 31 - APPLICABILITY - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY - DUTY OF THE AUTHORITY - RESTORATION OF PATTA IN THE NAME OF DEAD PERSON - VALIDITY - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - OUSTER - TITLE TO PROPERTY - DETERMINATION - REVENUE AUTHORITIES - POWER - EXTENT - DECLARATORY DECREE - BINDING NATURE - REVENUE AUTHORITIES - DUTY TO ACCEPT - TRANSFER OF TITLE - VOLUNTARY AND COMPULSORY - DISTINCTION - BSO 31(3) AND (4) - APPLICABILITY - MUTATION OF REVENUE RECORDS - EFFECT - TITLE TO PROPERTY - CREATION OR EXTINGUISHMENT - REVENUE AUTHORITIES - JURISDICTION - EXTENT - REVIEW PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - GROUNDS - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS AND DOCUMENTS - RELEVANCE - CONSIDERATION BY REVENUE AUTHORITY - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Mr. Mohan Ranganathan, claimed rights over the property in Survey No.223/2, Padur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk in Patta No.65 which originally stood in the name of one Mr. Gulam Rasool Sahib. The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, whereby the claim of the petitioner Mr. Mohan Ranganathan for grant of patta was rejected and the rival claim made by Mr. S.A. Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 was negatived and the patta was restored in the name of one Gulam Rasool Sahib, a dead person, who died in the year 1948. Mr. Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 is aggrieved by the proceedings, primarily on the ground that the rejection of the application for granting patta in his name and restoring the patta in the name of a dead person Gulam Rasool Sahib is contrary to law and the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue. Mr. S.A. Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 on the other hand states that he is entitled to patta and his claim was rejected stating that he has no valid legal right.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in both writ petitions, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu Division, Chenaglpattu, the second respondent in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 for considering the claim of the petitioner Mohan Ranganathan in terms of the BSO 31 of Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue taking into consideration of the relevant materials that have already been placed on record. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall give the petitioner Mr. Mohan Ranganathan as well the fourth respondent Mr. S.A. Bhimaraja an opportunity of hearing before deciding the matter. The proceeding on remand shall be concluded at the earliest preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Issues: 1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for patta and restoration of patta in the name of a dead person is valid? 2. Whether the revenue authorities have the power to determine the title to the property? 3. Whether the declaratory decree is binding on the revenue authorities? 4. Whether the transfer of title is voluntary or compulsory? 5. Whether the mutation of revenue records creates or extinguishes the title to the property? 6. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to determine the title to the property? 7. Whether the review petition is maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The revenue authorities are bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the BSO 31 in the patta related proceedings. 2. The revenue authorities cannot determine the title to the property. 3. The declaratory decree is binding on the revenue authorities. 4. The transfer of title is voluntary or compulsory depending on the circumstances of the case. 5. The mutation of revenue records does not create or extinguish the title to the property. 6. The civil court has jurisdiction to determine the title to the property. 7. The review petition is maintainable if there are subsequent events and documents to show that the claim to the property is invalid.
Final Decision: The impugned proceedings of the first respondent in both writ petitions, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu Division, Chenaglpattu, the second respondent in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 for considering the claim of the petitioner Mohan Ranganathan in terms of the BSO 31 of Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue taking into consideration of the relevant materials that have already been placed on record. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall give the petitioner Mr. Mohan Ranganathan as well the fourth respondent Mr. S.A. Bhimaraja an opportunity of hearing before deciding the matter. The proceeding on remand shall be concluded at the earliest preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the Writ petitions are ordered as above. No costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 is closed as no further order is necessary. Since the orders that are challenged have been set aside and the matter is remanded to the authority to rehear the parties, the miscellaneous petitions filed in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 for raising additional grounds and for amending the prayer does not survive at this point of time. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
1. Writ Petition No.21450 of 2008is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.4/30849/2007 dated
15. 2008, confirming the order of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.179/2007 dated 26. 2007 and direct the second respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner by effecting changes in the UDR for the property situated at S.No.223/2, 1.38 acres, Padur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
2. Writ Petition No.15851 of 2009is filedto issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the review petition dated 30.3.2009 filed against the orders in Na.Ka.No.4/30849/2007 dated 15. 2008 after giving opportunity to all the parties.
3. Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 and Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 claim certain rights over the property in Survey No.223/2, Padur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk in Patta No.65 which originally stood in the name of one Mr.Gulam Rasool Sahib.
4. Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 challenges the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, the first respondent in both the cases whereby the claim of the petitioner Mr.Mohan Ranganathan for grant of patta was rejected and the rival claim made by Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 was negatived and the patta was restored in the name of one Gulam Rasool Sahib, a dead person, who died in the year 1948. Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 is aggrieved by the proceedings, primarily on the ground that the rejection of the application for granting patta in his name and restoring the patta in the name of a dead person Gulam Rasool Sahib is contrary to law and the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue.
5. Mr.S.A.Bhimaraja, the petitioner in W.P.No.15851 of 2009 on the other hand states that he is entitled to patta and his claim was rejected stating that he has no valid legal right.
6. It is pertinent to point out that both the parties claim rights as purchasers of property. The transfer of the property as claimed is as hereunder.
7. The case of Mr.Mohan Ranganathan, the petitioner in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 is as follows:-
(i) One C.A.Kabeer, the fourth respondent in W.P.No.15851 of 2009, son of late C.A.Hafees and two others filed a suit O.S.No.8667 of 1985 on the file of the Sixth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against 9 individuals and officials, viz., the Sub Registrar, Thiruporur, as the 10th defendant, and the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, as the 11th defendant. One Mrs.Mehrunnisa was arrayed as the second defendant. The suit O.S.No.8667 of 1985 was decreed ex parte and a declaratory decree was passed on 111. 1989, and it reads as follows:-
Tamil.
The property which is the subject matter of the present writ petition is found in "B" schedule of the suit decree in O.S.No.8667 of 1985 bearing Survey No.223/2 in an extent of 1.38 acres.
(ii) Prior to passing of declaratory decree in O.S.No.8667 of 1985, certain events happened and the same are as follows.On 3. 1984 Mrs.Mehrunnissa, the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.8667 of 1985 along with eight others filed a partition suit O.S.No.2241 of 1984 separately against Malik Basha and 115 others before the City Civil Court, Chennai claiming 92/1564 shares in the suit property which includes the Survey No.223/2, Padur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk contained in Patta No.65. After some period of time, on 16. 1985, the suit O.S.No.2241 of 1984 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The said Mrs.Mehrunnissa, however, did not choose to file a fresh suit, but proceeded to execute a sale deed dated 16. 1985 bearing document No.1447/85 in favour of one Mr.Manickam and two others, without there being a decree for partition.In the suit O.S.No.2241 of 1984, Mrs.Mehrunnissa claims to be wife of Abdul Hamid alias Hayath Basha a
AI
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
