Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 1084
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN, J.
Mani Alias Adhimoola Naicker
Versus
The District Collector, Kancheepuram & Others
W.P.No.1574 of 2013
Decided on: 06-06-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K. Ramesh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3, Dig Vijay Pandian, Additional Government Pleader, R4, Dr. C. Ravichandran, Advocate, R5 to R7, No Appearance.
Disputed facts cannot be decided in a writ petition, and parties should approach the appropriate forum, specifically the civil court, for property title disputes.
Headnote:
Patta - Property Dispute - Patta Pass Book Act, Board Standing Orders - [Patta Pass Book Act, Board Standing Orders] - The court held that disputed facts cannot be decided in a writ petition and parties should approach the appropriate forum. The court also emphasized that the competent forum for disputes regarding property title is the civil court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction for the 3rd respondent to pass orders on representations regarding the issuance of patta for a property. The court found that there was a civil dispute between the parties and emphasized that disputed facts cannot be decided in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the involvement of a civil dispute. It directed the parties to seek redressal in the appropriate civil court.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition in the presence of a civil dispute regarding the property title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that disputed facts cannot be decided in a writ petition and parties should approach the appropriate forum, specifically the civil court, for property title disputes.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the parties to seek redressal in the appropriate civil court.
1. The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition for a direction to the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on his representations dated 20.03.2012 and 01.11.2012 as per due process of law.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this case are as follows:
2.1. The petitioner is a resident of Mangalam Village, Thirukalukkundram from 1973 onwards. His father was in possession of the property situated in Survey No.147/11B, which comes to an extent of 2.11 cents for more than two decades and after the lifetime of his father, the petitioner is enjoying peaceful possession of the said property till now. When the petitioner went to the office of the Tahsildar and made an application to furnish a copy of patta, he came to know that the 3rd respondent had mechanically issued patta in the name of the 4th respondent without conducting any enquiry and without summoning the petitioner for hearing, without considering the fact that the petitioner and his brother Sarangabani were in peaceful possession of the said property.
2.2. At that point of time, the petitioner and his brother Sarangabani gave a representation dated 02.04.2009 to the 2nd respondent, after the 3rd respondent wrongly issued Patta in the name of respondents 4 to 7. The 2nd respondent forwarded the 3rd respondent, proceedings in O.Mu.2001/2009P dated 26.06.2009, but the 3rd respondent did not take any steps on the above said proceedings. The petitioner subsequently sent a representation on 20.03.2012 and on 01.11.2012 to the 3rd respondent to restore the pattas wrongly issued in the name of respondents 4 to 7 and issue patta in the name of the petitioner and his brother Sarangabani. Despite several visits in person, as no appropriate orders were passed by the 3rd respondent for issuance of patta in the name of the petitioner, having no other efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner is before this Court with the above Writ Petition.
3. Heard Mr. K. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Dig Vijay Pandian, learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Dr. C. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
4. Though the petitioner has sought a limited relief of directing the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on his representations dated 20.03.2012 and 01.11.2012 as per due process of law, a reading of the said representations would reveal that there is a Civil dispute between the parties.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501has held that jurisdiction under Article 226 would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situation, and writ of mandamus cannot be sought for, especially when determination of the questions involved did not merely involve interpretation of documents alone, but require adducing of oral evidence, and writ proceedings cannot be a substitute for a civil suit.
6. Also in the decisions reported in AIR 1976 SC 475 (Arya Vyasa Sabha and Others v. Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions & Endowments, Hyderabad and Others); AIR 2003 SC 1060 (Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. And Another); (2001) 7 SCC 1 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers); (2006) 9 SCC 256 (Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana and Others); (2007) 7 MLJ 687 (Food Corporation of India v. Harmesh Chand); 2005 (5) CTC 695 (SC) (S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram) etc., the Honourable Supreme Court held that disputed facts cannot be decided in writ petition and parties can approach the appropriate forum.
7. Following the above decisions, this Court in the case of A. Asirul Fasil vs. The District Revenue Officer and others decided in W.P(MD)No.12676 of 2011 on 04.04.2014, has held as under:
11. It is not in dispute that there is a dispute as to the title of the property between the petitioner and fourth r
