Property ownership disputes necessitate resolution through Civil Court rather than administrative cancellation of patta, as per the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act.

(Judgment was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present Intra-Court Appeal has been instituted to assail the writ order dated 16.04.2021 passed in W.P.No.7771 of 2018.

2. The facts in nutshell are that the appellants/writ petitioners were the patta holders initially and the 4th respondent submitted an application for cancellation of patta. The said application came to be allowed and the patta stood in the name of the appellants were cancelled. An appeal was preferred by the appellants before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal by relegating the appellants to approach the competent Civil Court for the purpose of resolving the civil disputes. Thus, the writ petition came to be instituted. The Writ Court also formed an opinion that the parties have to adjudicate the issues before the competent Civil Court for the purpose of establishing their title. Not satisfied with the writ order, the present writ appeal came to be filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that the patta stood in the name of the appellants for a long time and the appellants are the owner of the subject property. Suddenly, an application was filed by the 4th respondent seeking cancellation of patta, which was allowed without considering the documents produced by the appellants. Pertinently, the appellants were not heard by Appellate Authority. However, it is not in dispute that the Original Authority heard all the parties and recorded the statements of the appellants.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that mere cancellation of the patta per se, would not provide a cause for institution of a writ petition, since the title dispute exist between the parties. Unless the dispute is settled, the Revenue Authorities cannot consider the application for grant of patta. That apart, the Civil Court decree produced by the appellants is only a bare injunction and does not provide grounds for granting patta in their name.

5. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would oppose by stating that the 4th respondent is the owner of the property. He filed cancellation application along with the documents and after due adjudication, the Original Authority canceled the patta, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. That being so, the present writ appeal is to be rejected.

6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, in the appellate order, made a finding that the 4th respondent produced documents to establish his purchase of the subject property. The 4th respondent filed a civil suit in O.S.No.29 of 2014 seeking for a bear injunction, which was decreed in his favour. However, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.32 of 2015 and the Additional Subordinate Court, Ponneri, allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree and remanded the suit for re-adjudication. Consequently, the suit is currently pending before the Trial Court. The appeal suit was allowed during the pendency of the present writ appeal.

7. Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 , stipulates that “The Tahsildar shall issue a patta pass book to every owner in respect of land owned by him, on an application made by him in this behalf”. Therefore, prima facie ownership must be established to submit a patta application. In the event of any dispute regarding ownership between the parties, then the Revenue Authorities have no option but to relegate the parties to approach Civil Court of law.

8. Section 14 of the Patta Passbook Act denotes “Bar of Suits”. Section 14 Proviso Clause indicates that