IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.03.2025 CORAM T HE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N .ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.20763 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.22706, 22708 & 32258 of 2024 K.Thilagaraj .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, Chengalpattu District.

4.The Sub Registrar, Guduvancherry, Chengalpattu District.

5.Devi .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1999/2024/A5, dated 15.06.2024 and quash the same and consequently restore the orders of the 3^rd respondent in Mu.Mu.No.1283/2023/A, dated 17.10.2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran For RR 1 to 4 : Mr.M.R.Gokulkrishnan Additional Government Pleader For R5 : No appearance

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the

2^nd respondent dated 15.06.2024 and for a consequential direction to restore the patta in the name of the petitioner.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4.

3.The specific case of the petitioner is that the subject property in Survey No.183/3 measuring to an extent of 97 ½ cents is owned by the petitioner. The patta was also issued to the petitioner's ancestors in Patta No.5 and after the UDR scheme, now the patta was issued in Patta No.127 in the name of the petitioner. While so, some of the persons created fraudulent documents and ultimately, the property was sold in favour of the 5^th respondent. Based on the same, the 5^th respondent submitted an application for patta and the patta was also issued in favour of the 5^th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent for cancellation of patta, which was given in favour of the 5^th respondent. The 3^rd respondent after conducting an enquiry, passed an order dated 17.10.2023 and canceled the patta issued in favour of the

5^th respondent.

4.The 5^th respondent filed an appeal before the 2^nd respondent and an enquiry was conducted by the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent set aside the order passed by the 3^rd respondent on the ground that there is already a suit pending in O.S.No.1 of 2024 filed by the petitioner challenging the documents that were executed pertaining to subject property and therefore, the parties were directed to workout the remedy before the Civil Court. That being so, the patta was restored in the name of the 5^th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

5.In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner has already filed a suit which is pending in O.S.No.1 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. In this suit, the 5^th respondent and others including the official respondents have been added as defendants and the petitioner has sought for the relief of declaration to declare the settlement deed dated 12.01.2016, power of attorney deed dated 13.11.2017, sale deed dated 11.01.2019 and settlement deed dated 11.01.2019 as null and void and for a permanent injunction. This suit is pending. In view of the same, the right and title over the property will have to be adjudicated only before the Civil Court and the 2^nd respondent cannot parallely deal with the same. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent has rightly disposed of the appeal through proceedings dated 15.06.2024. While so, the original position was restored whereby the patta was restored in the name of the 5^th respondent. Till the sale deed that was executed in favour of the 5^th respondent is cancelled or declared null and void by the competent Civil Court, the patta has to be issued based on the said sale deed.

6.In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by