Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
V. Marnadu - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Madurai & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD). No. 746 of 2014 & MP(MD). Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014
Decided On : 27-07-2022
Patta Dispute - Property Title Dispute - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - [Article 226] - [Constitution of India] - [No specific Act section referenced] - The court addressed a dispute over the ownership of a property and the validity of a patta granted to the third respondent. The petitioner claimed that the patta was obtained through forgery and impersonation, while the third respondent asserted ownership based on a sale deed. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the title dispute and directed the Civil Courts to dispose of the pending suits uninfluenced by the orders of the Revenue Authorities or the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged an order granting Patta to the third respondent for a disputed property. The petitioner claimed ownership based on purchase by his father, while the third respondent asserted ownership based on a sale deed. Civil suits were pending between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties and directed the Civil Courts to dispose of the suits uninfluenced by the orders of the Revenue Authorities or the Court.
Issues: Title dispute over property ownership, validity of patta, jurisdiction of Revenue Authority and Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the title dispute and directed the Civil Courts to dispose of the suits uninfluenced by the orders of the Revenue Authorities or the Court.
Final Decision: The patta granted in favor of the writ petitioner was kept in abeyance till the disposal of the Civil suits, and the concerned Civil Courts were directed to dispose of the suits uninfluenced by the orders of the Revenue Authorities or the Court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.G2/19715/2011 dated 20.12.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue the patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property in S.No.13/3C to the extent of 81 ½ cents (0.33 ares) situated at Chettikulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai.)
1. The writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the second respondent herein under which Patta was granted in favour of the third respondent.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that the property comprised in Survey No.13/3 at Chettikulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, measuring to an extent of 1.30 acres was purchased by his father Iyyathurai @ Vellaisamy on 12.08.1973 from one Mohammed Salika Beevi. After death of his father in the year 1990, himself and his brother are enjoying the said property in New Survey No.13/3C and hence, they are the absolute owners of the property.
3. The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the revenue officials have divided the Survey No.13/3C into two sub-divisions. One sub-division in Survey No.13/3C with an extent of 81.5 cents and another sub-division in Survey No.13/3D1 having an extent of 38.2 cents. Due to mistake, the name of one Bulkoosbeevi was entered in the patta for Survey No.13/3C. Hence, the petitioner had approached the Village Administrative Office for correcting the said mistake for an extent of 81 ½ cents in the Patta.
4. According to the learned Senior Counsel, since the petitioner or his brother were not willing to meet out the illegal demands of the said Village Administrative Officer, they have approached the Revenue Inspector and submitted a petition in the Jamapanthi to correct the said mistake. At the instigation of V.A.O, the petitioner's request was rejected on 02.11.2009. The Revenue Inspector and the Patta Clerk have joined together and impersonated a lady in the name of Bulkoosbeevi and pasted a photo in the patta book and prepared a bogus patta in the name of Bulkoosbeevi on 05.05.2010. Based upon the forged patta, she had sold the property on 28.06.2010 in favour of the third respondent herein. Except this forged patta, no other document was annexed to the sale deed in favour of the third respondent. Thereafter, on the basis of the sale deed, the Patta was transferred in the name of the third respondent on 14.09.2010.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had further contended that the issue was taken by the petitioner to the Deputy Tahsildar and he had cancelled the said patta in the name of the third respondent and re-transferred it in the name of the petitioner and his brother. The petitioner had given a police complaint in Crime No.1132 of 2010 and the investigation has been completed on 08.02.2011 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and the case has been taken on file in C.C.No.348 of 2011 as against the Village Administrative Officer and other revenue officials for creating a forged Patta.
6. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the order of the Deputy Tahsildar was challenged by the third respondent before the second respondent herein. On 05.05.2011, the second respondent had reversed the order and granted Patta in favour of the third respondent herein. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.8313 of 2011 and the same was allowed on 07.12.2011 by this Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and the matter was remitted to the file of the second respondent for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the second respondent herein has passed the present impugned order without properly appreciating the factual details.
7. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that there is no such perso
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to resolve title disputes, directing parties to civil court for adjudication.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing ownership and conveyance of property, and the need for mutation in accordance with the decree of the civil court in property disputes.
The observation made by an administrative authority should not influence the rights of the parties before the Civil Court.
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to cancel patta without authority; title disputes resolved by civil courts.
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes confirmed by civil courts, and cancellation of patta solely based on a pending review application or appeal against such a confirmed....
Revenue authorities lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of title to immovable property, and any mutation of revenue records remains subject to the outcome of pending civil court pr....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
