The Revenue Divisional Officer cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title and should refer the parties to the civil court for resolution.

D. Murugesan, J.

1. The writ appeal is directed against the order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. Facts giving rise to the present writ appeal are as follows. The appellant company claims to have purchased an extent of 51 cents in Survey No.93/3 and 57 cents in Survey No.93/4 of Thandalam village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District from one Tmt.Shoba Ramalingam by way of a registered sale deed dated 30.10.92 in Document No.4673 of 1992 registered on the file of Sub Registrar, Sriperumbudur. According to the appellant, the said Tmt.Shoba Ramalingam in turn acquired an extent of 80 cents of land in Survey No.93/3 from one Thiru K.Palani Achari under a registered sale deed and the said Thiru.Palani Achari in turn acquired his holdings in the said survey number from one Thiru.T.Balarama Pillai and others in the year 1964 by way of a registered sale deed.

2. The appellant company’s holding in Survey No.93/3 was sub-divided as Survey No.93/3A and the holding in Survey No.93/4 was sub-divided as Survey No.93/4A. The appellant company had been paying kist regularly and the same was made upto Fasli 1414 as on 19.3.2005. In respect of the land, Patta No.459 was issued in favour of Tmt.Shoba Ramalingam, the vendor of the appellant company. Ever since the date of purchase in the year 1992, the appellant company had been in possession of the property and had developed the same by spending over Rs.11 lakhs. An extent of 0.163 square metres of land in Survey No.93/4 was acquired by the Highways Department and the appellant was also paid the compensation therefor.

3. The appellant was served with the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram dated 8.6.2005 requiring them to appear before him for an enquiry on 10.6.2005. That proceeding relates to an enquiry, whereby one Thiru.E.Kumar claimed patta in Survey No.93/3 in an extent of 1.32 acres. The appellant was directed to produce the document relating to title, which they did. In spite of the same, by the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram dated 16.7.2005, the patta granted in favour of the appellant was cancelled in respect of 80 cents of land in Survey No.93/3 with a further direction to issue patta in favour of one Thiru E.Kumar, the fourth respondent in this writ appeal.

4. Being aggrieved by the above, the appellant was constrained to file the writ petition. The learned Judge, placing reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai and others, 1995 (1) MLJ 426 and the judgment of a learned single Judge (DMJ) in Chockkappan and two others v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai and two others, 2004 (1) CTC 136, held that in the event a dispute relating to the title is involved, the writ Court cannot entertain the writ petition and adjudicate the same. Consequently, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. Further the learned Judge held that the appellant has got a remedy of appeal before the District Collector and accordingly, the appellant was given liberty to file appeal in a period of four weeks. This order is put in issue in this writ appeal.

5. We have heard Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.M.C.Swamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.4.

6. The writ appeal was resisted on the ground that the appellant being the writ petitioner should have availed the remedy of appeal instead of filing the writ petition. In this context, we may refer to the fact that in the event the act of the revenue authority is without jurisdiction, particularly for the reasons stated hereunder, the writ petition is certainly maintainable. See M.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and another v. Jahan Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88. Hence, on the facts of