SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 1866

High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Fyz. Mohammad
Versus
The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration & Others
W.P. No. 18777 of 2007
Decided On : 12-04-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mrs. R.T. Shyamala, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R5 - R.M. Muthukumar, Government Advocate, R6 & R7 - M. Ajmal Khan, Advocate.

The main legal point established is that Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide property title disputes and that such disputes should be resolved by the Civil Court.

Headnote:

Jurisdiction - Property Dispute - Survey and Settlement Boundaries Act - Section 9(2) - IPC Section 147, 447, 427 - Patta - Competent Civil Court - Division Bench Judgment - Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks to quash the order cancelling the patta granted to him and issuing patta in favor of the respondents. The property was inherited by the petitioner and his brothers after their father's death. The respondents claimed ownership based on forged documents, leading to a criminal case and subsequent orders by the Revenue authorities.

Finding of the Court:

The Revenue authorities are not competent to decide the title to immovable property. The Division Bench held that the proper course is to direct the parties to the dispute to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their right.

Issues: Jurisdiction of Revenue authorities to decide property title, validity of patta cancellation, and the need for parties to approach the Civil Court to establish their right.

Ratio Decidendi: The Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the title of the property. Disputed questions of title should be resolved by the Civil Court. The Division Bench judgments emphasized the limited jurisdiction of Revenue authorities and the need for parties to seek remedy in the Civil Court.

Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the respondents were directed to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their right over the property.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to quash the order dated 27.06.2001 passed by the fourth respondent herein cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and to issue patta in favour of the sixth and seventh respondents herein, which was also confirmed by the third respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner and further confirmed by the first respondent in the revision petition.

2. According to the petitioner, his father Late. Amir Mohammed Miran was the owner of the property situated in S.No.77-B/15-A, T.S. No.6 in Ward (A), Block 17 at Sambanthapuram Village, Rajapalayam Taluk. During the year 1980, notice under Section 9 (2) of the Survey and Settlement Boundaries Act was issued to his father and after conducting enquiry, patta was issued in the name of his father. After the death of his father, the petitioner and his brothers inherited the property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. According to the petitioner, the sixth and seventh respondents herein have created forged and bogus documents in respect of the property owned by the petitioner and his brothers as if they have purchased the same from third parties. Based on such forged documents, the sixth and seventh respondents have claimed 2 cents of land and filed a petition before the fifth respondent/Tahsildar for issuing patta in their name. The fifth respondent enquired the matter and found that patta was already issued in the name of the father of the petitioner. Therefoe, the fifth respondent, by order dated 18.05.1994 directed the respondents 6 and 7 to approach the Competent Civil Court to establish their right, if any. The petitioner also a filed a private complaint in S.T.C. No. 2141 of 1996 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Srivilliputhur for the offences punishable under Section 147, 447 and 427 of IPC against the respondents 6 and 7 also they pleaded guilty in the said STC case and they were directed to execute personal bond worth Rs.2,000/- and released under Section 4 (i) of the Probation of Offenders Act by order dated 10.12.1996.

3. According to the petitioner, even though the respondents 6 and 7 have pleaded guilty in the criminal case initiated by him, they have sent a representation dated 19.08.1996 to the second respondent and it was forwarded to the fifth respondent for conducting appropriate enquiry. The fifth respondent again conducted enquiry and passed an order dated 10.12.1999 direcing the respondents 6 and 7 to establish their right before the competent Civil Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents 6 and 7 have filed an appeal before the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent, based on an opinion given by the Government Advocate, passed an order dated 27.06.2001 directing the fifth respondent to issue patta in favour of the sixth and seventh respondents. As against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent and the same was rejected on 12.03.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner along with his brothers have filed Revision Petition before the first respondent and the same was also rejected on 27.06.2001. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was confirmed in appeal and revision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would conend that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the title of the property and he ought to have directed the respondents 6 and 7 to approach the Civil Court to establish their right and title over the property, if any. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority erred in confirming the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, he also relied on the Division Bench of this Court reported in (VishwasFootwear Company Limited, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 032













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top