ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, dated 19.12.2015, wherein, he had set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, on 19.02.1989.

2. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioners' grandfather had sold a portion of the land even as earlier as the year 1934. The fourth respondent is a subsequent purchaser from the purchasers of the petitioner's grandfather. By the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Devakottai, Sivagangai District, dated 19.02.1989 in Mu.Mu.No.1119 /87 patta has been issued in the name of the petitioner. Further the land was subject matter of settlement under the Natham re-settlement proceedings. Based on the said proceedings, the patta was issued in the name of petitioner in Patta No.597.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the fourth respondent claiming that he had purchased the entire property and being aggrieved against the patta standing in the name of the petitioner, had approached the Revenue Divisional Officer namely, the second respondent herein. The second respondent, by his order, dated 07.08.2013, refused to interfere with the grant of patta and had directed the fourth respondent to seek redressal by approaching appropriate civil Court. Being aggrieved, had preferred a revision to the first respondent. The first respondent, by his order, dated 19.12.2015 had set aside the order of the Tahsildar, dated 19.02.1989 and cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner and directed restoration of the “A” Register prior to UDR. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the UDR proceedings had taken place only in the year 1994 and the patta was not issued pursuant to the order in the UDR proceedings and therefore, the reasoning given by the first respondent that the Tahsildar had no authority to correct the UDR, is without any application of mind and therefore, he would state that the power exercised by the first respondent is a colourable exercise. He would further submit that, if the fourth respondent is aggrieved, he can only file a suit before the appropriate Court.

4. The learned Counsel for the fourth respondent vehemently contended that the grandfather of the petitioner was the original owner of the property, from whom all the predecessors had purchased the property. According to him, the name of the petitioner's predecessor has been entered in the settlement Register even as early as in the year 1970 and that the predecessor entitled to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. The patta had been issued to the petitioner without any notice whatsoever to him. He would further submit that the procedure for sub division has also not been followed, which has vitiated proceedings of the Tahsildar which has been set aside by the first respondent. He would further submit that even though the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 19.02.1989 is prior to UDR, the same has been issued without any notice to the fourth respondent. Therefore, he would submit that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent.

5. I have considered the submissions made on the learned Counsel appearing on either side.

6. At the outset, there is a clear dispute as to who is the owner of the property. The petitioner claims that a portion of the land only sold by his grandfather and therefore the fourth respondent cannot claim any right for the entire extent of property. Whereas, the fourth respondent claims to be the owner of the entire property.

7. The Rules 4 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, read as follows:

4 (4). In the event of the Tahsildar being satisfied that a dispute concerning ownership of patta is already pending in a Court or issues are raised before him which impinge on personal laws or laws of succession and all the parties interested do not agree on the ownership in writing, he shall direct the concerned parties to obtain a ruling on ownership from