The power of revision under the Patta Pass Book Act 1986 allows the District Revenue Officer to order a fresh enquiry in the case of conflicting orders, and such decisions are not subject to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from District Revenue Officer with reference to order dated 16.12.2008 passed by him in Na.Ka.25934/2008/C2 and quash the same and further direct the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur to issue patta in favaour of the petitioner for S.F.No.575/1 and 575/2 Allikaranpalayam Village, Odar Palayam post, Avinasi Taluk, Coimbatore.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that S.F.No.575/1 and 575/2 Allikaranpalayam Village, Ottarpalayam post, Avinashi Taluk, Coimbatore is a land going from East to West and was being used by the petitioners as a pathway to reach their lands and houses. On objections to declare the land as a public pathway, the Revenue Divisional Officer inspected the property along with the Village Administrative Officer and pass the following order:-

“Based on the above cited information, it has come to light that in SF 575/2 about 54 sq. mtr is registered and given natham patta to Thiru. Velusamy s/o Marappa Gounder and SF No.575/1 is classified as pathway. The land owners of SF No.575/2, ¾, 5, 6 were jointly uses as pathway. It is hereby ordered that, joint pathway. In Ottarpalayam Village SF No.244 patta land, through which the general public used it as a common pathway for several years should not been interrupted by the land owner. As per the above order, Tahsildar, Avinasi Taluk is directed to make the changes in Village and Taluk records within 15 days of the receipt of this order.”

3. This order was not challenged and the land was being used as a pathway only by the petitioners. It is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer by an order dated 08.05.2008 in Na. Ka. 9049/2002/A2 modified this earlier order dated 08.05.2008 and pass the following order:-

“Thiru A.K. Nataraj, Thiru. Arumugam, and Thiru. Ramasamy represented on behalf of the dwellers of Otterpalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk and requested to cancel the patta and to clean the bushes occupied in SF.No.575/1, which is mentioned as joint track and requested for assessing the land for common track. As enquiry regarding this matter held in the office and as filed inspected also made on it.

Based on the enquiry conducted, the proposed land SF. No.575/1 is mentioned as track in Village accounts. In the proceedings ref. 1st cited in an ordered issued, that the SF.No.575/2,3,4,5 and 6 are pata lands and it is mentioned as joint track for these patta land holders. It is also ordered that SF.No.575/1 is been recorded as natham poromboke and few were allowed to used their land as joint track and not allowed to take possession of it.

Hereby it is ordered that the proposed land which is considered as joint track is cancelled and ordered as common track.

The Tahsildar, Avinashi is her by directed to make changes in Village in Taluk account and also make eviction in the proposal land is required.”

4. This order was challenged in appeal by the petitioners before the District Revenue Officer Coimbatore, District Revenue Officer Coimbatore, found the inconsistency in the two orders and by the order impugned herein observed as under:-

“On scrutinizing the facts submitted by both parties, it is hereby ordered that the, proceedings of the RDO, Tiruppur in K.Dis.2621/2002/a2 dated 08.05.2002 and 9049/2002/A2 dated 08.05.2008 has two different judgment and that is not acceptable and considered valid. RDO, Tiruppur is directed to inspect and enquire both paties with equal chances given for each of them during the process and issue the order on merit.”

5. This order of the District Revenue Officer Coimbatore dated 16.12.2008 in ref. no.25934/2008/C2 is assailed in this writ petition stating that the order dated 08.05.2002 passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer ought to not have been set aside in the absence of any appeal or without any valid reasons. It is contented the writ petition that no purpose would be served in remandi