Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58291
2025:MHC:2262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN WA No. 647 of 2025 and CMP No. 5281 of 2025 P.Mani Appellant(s)
Vs
1.M/s.VGP Beach Housing Rep. by its Partner, Mr.V.G.P.Babudas, VGP Square, No.21, Dharmaraja Koil Street, Saidapet, Chennai-37.
2.The District Revenue Officer Chennai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Chennai District.
4.The Tahsildar Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 passed in WP No. 13327 of 2024.
For Appellant(s): N.Nithianandam For Respondent(s): M.V.Seshachari For M/s.Lencorp Legal For R1 Mrs.Akila Rajendran,GA For R2 to R4
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.Nithianandam
For the Respondents: M.V.Seshachari, M/s.Lencorp Legal, Mrs.Akila Rajendran,GA
Ownership disputes regarding property under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act require resolution in Civil Court rather than through Writ proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 - Section 3 - Issue of patta is contingent upon establishing ownership/title - Writ Court's role is limited to procedural examination. (Paras 6, 11)
(B) Exhaustion of statutory remedies - Disputes regarding property rights must be resolved in a Civil Court - Writ Courts should exercise restraint. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Appellant and 1st respondent in dispute over ownership of property previously belonging to third party; the District Revenue Officer's decision was contested in the Writ Petition.
Findings of Court:
Orders must not interfere in ownership rights, directing parties to settle disputes via Civil Courts.
Issues: Determining the proper forum for addressing ownership disputes over property under the Patta Pass Book Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Writ Courts cannot adjudicate civil rights without examination through legal procedures; proper ownership must be established before any application for patta.
Result: Writ appeal disposed, with parties instructed to approach Civil Court.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The order of the Writ Court dated 19.11.2024 passed in the W.P.No.13327 of 2024 is under challenge in the present Intra-Court Appeal. The appellant is the 4th respondent in the writ petition.
2. The 1st respondent preferred the writ petition challenging the order passed by the District Revenue Officer (DRO), Chennai District dated 24.03.2023. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the 1st respondent purchased the subject property from Mrs.M.S.Rajeswari in the year 1979. However, the District Revenue Officer found that the patta stood in the name of Mrs.M.S.Rajeswari. The 1st respondent filed a writ petition to quash the proceedings dated 24.03.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent. The relief sought for before the District Revenue Officer to cancel the patta stood in the name of Mrs.M.S.Rajeswari and restore the patta in the name of the appellant. The District Revenue Officer conducted an inquiry and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.
3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that order was passed without hearing 1st respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the District Revenue Officer is to be set aside. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer in proceedings dated 24.03.2023.
4. The facts are controverted between the parties, more specifically between the appellant and 1st respondent. The appellant claims that he is the owner of the property. The 1st respondent states that they purchased the subject property from Mrs.M.S.Rajeswari in the year 1979 and they have not been heard by the District Revenue Officer. The District Revenue Officer found that the name of the 1st respondent was not available in the revenue records and the deceased Mrs.M.S.Rajeswari was the patta holder. On that pretext, the adjudication was proceeded and appeal filed by the appellant was allowed.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 brought to the notice of this Court that the 1st respondent filed O.S.No.257 of 2003 suit for bare injunction which was dismissed for default.
6. Let us consider the scheme under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. The issue in the present case relating to restoration of original patta. Section 3 of the Act speaks about “Issue of patta pass book”. Sub Section (1) contemplates that “The Tahsildar shall issue a patta pass book to every owner in respect of the land owned by him, on an application made by him in this behalf. Any application received under this Section shall be acknowledged by the Tahsildar or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf”.
7. The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub Section (1) of Section 22 of the Act, prescribes the procedure to be followed on receipt of an application or information and adjudicate the same as contemplated under the Rules. Thus, it is amply clear that owner of the property alone is entitled to submit an application seeking patta.
8. Establishing ownership/title is essential for entertaining an application under the Patta Passbook Act. In the event of any dispute or objection by any other person, the authorities are left with no other option but to relegate the parties to resolve the issues through Civil Court of Law.
9. In this context, proviso Clause to Section 14 of the Act denotes that “if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta pass book under this Act, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the entry in the patta pass book shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration”.
10. The very purpose and object of the above provision needs to be considered, since many number of writ petitions have be
