Revenue authorities must provide reasoned orders after considering all evidence on record when adjudicating land status; a civil court decree denying a plaintiff's claim does not necessarily confer positive title on the defendants, particularly when the property is classified as government land.

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 26.02.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.24448 of 2024 on the file of this Court.

For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Maharajan

Special Government Pleader

For Respondents : Mr.J.Barathan for R1

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

The State is in appeal as against the order dated 26.02.2025 of the writ Court. We have heard the submissions of Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel for R1.

2. The subject matter of the litigation is the property at S.No. 227/2, Soornakottai Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, admeasuring 2 acres and 53 cents (property / property in question / subject property).

3. It is the case of the State that the order under appeal has not taken note of various relevant circumstances and has merely accepted the prayer for quash of proceedings dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Ramanathapuram District, based on a decree in O.S.No.312 of 1996 dated 06.01.2004.

4. According to Mr.Maharajan, that decree does not vest any positive title upon R1. He also submits that the classification of the property is sarkar poromboke with the words iyer madam / ayyanar madam, mayanam in the remarks column.

5. Mr.Maharajan would point out that no patta had been sought in respect of the subject property by the private respondent or by their family members till 30.08.2024, when a claim was made, based on a Will executed in 2018, and patta obtained.

6. He relies on the decision of this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar vs. The District Revenue Officer and others, (1995) 1 MLJ 426 to the effect that a writ Court ought not enter into the realm of decision making, qua title to property. He specifically draws our attention to the observation that even if the Revenue Authorities decide the question of title and grant patta, that will not affect the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, which will have to decide the question without reference to the decision of the Revenue Authorities.

7. Thus according to him, proceedings dated 03.10.2024 had decided the question having regard to all materials and the writ Court erred in setting aside those proceedings.

8. Mr.J.Barathan, would, on the contrary, submit that the private respondent in O.S.312 of 1996 had been in possession of the property in question for more than five decades. He relies on the Judgment and decree dated 06.01.2004, which according to him, has the unequivocal result of vesting title to the subject property upon R1.

9. He also relies upon Judgment and decree in O.S.No.82 of 2000, dated 04.10.2010, which ultimately culminated in order dated 30.11.2016 in S.A.(MD)No.683 of 2016, in favour of R1. This litigation was declaratory in nature and sought resumption of possession of the subject property. It is in these circumstances that he would assert title of R1 to the subject property.

10. As an alternate argument, he would draw attention to the fact that the proceedings of the impugned in writ petition (proceedings of the RDO dated 03.10.24) had not taken note of the voluminous submissions made on behalf of R1. Though the order notes that around 15 documents h