Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to determine ownership disputes or the validity of registered documents, which must be resolved in civil court.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 13.11.2024 and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to issue patta in the name of the petitioner by considering his application dated 24.7.2024.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the respective learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 and 9 as well as the eighth respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows :

(i) The property measuring 2.21 acres at S.No.1/2 part, Puthur Village, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpattu District belonged to one Mr. Vittal Naidu, who settled it in favour of one of his daughters namely Mrs.Mahila vide settlement deed dated 14.12.1959 registered as doc.No.3214 of 1959 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Pallavaram along with some other properties. The subject property fell under B-schedule in the said settlement deed. The said Mrs.Mahila sold the subject property to the petitioner vide a sale deed dated 08.6.2012 registered as doc.No.3073 of 2012 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram for a valid sale consideration.

(ii) In the meantime, the said Mrs.Mahila found that the names of several other persons were entered in the revenue records and therefore, sought for removal of those names by submitting an application on 01.9.2008 to the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram. Pursuant to that, the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram, through proceedings dated 06.11.2012, restored the patta in favour of the original owner namely the said Mr.Vittal Naidu.

(iii) The sale deed dated 08.6.2012 that was executed in favour of the petitioner was kept as a pending document on the ground that the subject property was undervalued. Ultimately, the deficit stamp duty was paid only in the year 2023 and the document was released in the year 2024. Meanwhile, the computer patta and the other revenue records were transferred to the names of the private respondents. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation dated 12.7.2023 before the second respondent. Pursuant to that, an order dated 14.3.2024 came to be passed by the second respondent cancelling the patta issued in favour of the private respondents and directing the patta to be restored in the name of the said Mr.Vittal Naidu as was directed by the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram through proceedings dated 06.11.2012.

(iv) Aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent dated 14.3.2024, the private respondents filed an appeal before the first respondent, who, vide proceedings dated 13.11.2024, reversed the order passed by the second respondent dated 14.3.2024 and directed the patta to be issued in the names of the private respondents. It was further directed that the petitioner should work out his remedy before the civil court if he is questioning the sale deeds executed in favour of the private respondents in the year 1982 as fraudulent documents. As against the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

4. The main ground that was raised on the side of the petitioner is that the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram already passed an order on 06.11.2012 restoring the patta in the name of the original owner namely the said Mr.Vittal Naidu and directed the parties to work out their remedies before the competent civil court. While so, the first respondent cannot review the said order dated 06.11.2012 through the subsequent proceedings dated 13.11.2024.

5. The other submission that was made on the side of the petitioner is that the private respondents had fabricated the sale deeds of the year 1982 and the name of the said Mrs.Mahila, who was the original owner, was forged. On coming to know of the same, the said Mrs.Mahila made a representation before the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram on 01.9.2008, that on considering the fact that the fraudulent documents were fabricated by the private resp