The jurisdiction to cancel the patta lies with the Revenue Divisional Officer as per the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983.

1. Heard Mr.A.Saravanan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.Rajarajan, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st Respondent.

2. To avoid an avoidable delay, notice to the 2nd Respondent is dispensed with by this Court.

3. According to the Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent is not having any right and title over the property in question had given a petition to the District Registrar, Periyakulam, to cancel the registered mortgages and on that basis, the said Registrar, Periyakulam caused a Notice bereft of particulars. Therefore, he filed W.P.(MD)No.10934 of 2012 and obtained Interim stay. That apart, one of the Petitioner's co-owner Ravikumar filed a Partition Suit in O.S.No.13 of 2012, on the file of the Sub Court, Periyakulam, in which the property in question was shown as 5th item in 'B' Schedule. In the said Suit, the father of the 2nd Respondent projected I.A.No.157 of 2014, to implead him as party and the same is pending for an enquiry.

4. It comes to be known that the 2nd Respondent had given a petition to the 1st Respondent to cancel the patta issued in favour of the Petitioner and his brother pertaining to the property and on that basis a Notice in Na.Ka.No.1766/2014/A2, dated 22.09.2014 was issued in an by which, the Petitioner was called upon to produce the documents relating to the property in question. The real grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned Notice, dated 22.09.2014, issued by the 1st respondent is an illegal one because of the simple reason that the 1st Respondent has no jurisdiction to cancel the patta after issuing the same and patta cancellation order can only be passed by the Revenue Divisional Offier, in terms of Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, which speaks of 'Appeal'. Added further, if any person aggrieved against the order passed by the RDO, then he can file a Revision in terms of Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act and seek appropriate remedy in the manner known to law and in accordance with law.

In view of the fact that the 1st Respondent / Tahsildar, Uthamapalayam Talum, Theni District, prima facie has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter relating to cancellation of patta and that too, after issuance of same, then this Court is of the considered view that the Memorandum / Notice, dated 22.09.2014, issued by the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.1766/2014/A2, is clearly unsustainable in the eye of Law. As such, this Court comes to an inescapable resultant conclusion that the 1st Respondent has no power to conduct an enquiry into the matter in issue. Viewed in that perspective, the Memorandum, dated 22.09.2014 issued by the 1st Respondent is set aside by this Court, in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Memorandum dated 22.09.2014 issued by the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.1766/2014/A2, is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned by this Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.