Revenue authorities must adhere to natural justice principles and cannot decide on land title matters when civil litigation is ongoing.

JUDGMENT :

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking in the writ petition.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are as under:

3(a) This is a second round of litigation.

3(b) Initially, the third respondent filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, for correction of entries in the UDR Scheme for the reason that the property to an extent of 1 Acre of the land in Survey Nos.280/6C and 281/3B has been purchased by his father, however, in the patta, a lesser extent, namely, 54 cents alone, has been entered in favour of his father.

3(c). Based on the said application, the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti Taluk, issued a notice of hearing to the vendor of the appellant, namely, Rajeswari Home Developers India (Private) Limited. Thereafter, the District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District, passed an order dated 18.10.2013 in favour of the third respondent.

3(d). Challenging the said order, the appellant filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.18538 of 2013 before this Court and by order dated 05.09.2014, this Court dismissed the said writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant filed an appeal in W.A.(MD) No.1300 of 2014, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment dated 07.01.2019, allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order dated 05.09.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.18538 of 2013, and remitted the matter to the District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District, for fresh hearing and for passing orders, after giving sufficient opportunities to the appellant as well as the third respondent.

3(e). The relevant portion of the said Judgment is extracted hereunder:

“1. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD)No. 18538 of 2013, dated 05.09.2014, is set aside. No costs.

2. The impugned order in writ petition in Na.Ka.No.D2/35057/2013, dated 18.10.2013, passed by the first respondent is quashed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh hearing and the first respondent shall pass an order after affording sufficient opportunity to both appellant as well as the third respondent and consider their case on merits. It is open to the appellant as well as the third respondent to raise all their objections and submit their documents before the first respondent. The first respondent shall pass an order in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any of the findings of this Court and the order passed by the first respondent will subject to the outcome of O.S.No.271 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kovilpatti. The Civil Court can independently decided the question of title.

While rendering the judgment, we are not holding that the revenue authorities are not competent to decide the question of title based on admitted facts for effecting mutation of records. We are only holding that the revenue authorities are not competent to mutate the revenue records contrary to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Patta Bass Book Act, 1983. Similarly, when a question is raised about the fraudulent nature of transaction and if it is established by documents, which are not disputed, the revenue authorities are competent to correct the entries and restore the revenue records to its original stage, if they are convinced that change or mutation of revenue records was by playing fraud. Similarly correction of entries wrongly made during UDR is also permissible. However, in all instances, when correction of entries is called for, it shall be done only after hearing the person interested. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

3(f). Subsequently, it appears that the third respondent filed a review application in Rev.Aplc(MD) No.100 of 2019 seeking to review the above Judgment dated 07.01.2019 passed in W.A.(MD) No.1300 of 2014 alleging that on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice on the part of