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) 1597

Madras High Court
K. RAVICHANDRA BAABU, J.
T.R. Dinakaran
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai & Others
W.P(MD)No.10271 of 2006 & M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2006
Decided On : 29-03-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T.S.R. Venkataramana, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R10 - B. Pugalendhi, Spl. Govt. Pleader, R2 - K.M. Vijayakumar, R3 -A. Sivaji, R4 - M. Sridhar, R5 to R9 - R. Devaraj for D. Rajendran, Advocates.

Headnote:TAMIL NADU PATTA PASS BOOK ACT, 1983 - Rules 1987 - Rule 12, 14 and 15 - Cancellation of patta of writ petitioner by RDO - Validity - Question 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 - From the reading under provisions of Act and Rules, 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 - Held, 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 24.01.2006, 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 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 - When petitioner and respondent equally claim title over property 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. (Para 19) - Impugned order set aside.

       Result : Writ Petition allowed.

Judgment :-

1. 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


























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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

SupremeToday

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