Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to cancel patta without authority; title disputes resolved by civil courts.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

20.01.2021 passed by the 3^rd respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, prior to the UDR survey, the property was in the name of one Rukmani Ammal. Subsequently, it was sold to the petitioner’s vendor/Irudhayam vide sale deed dated 24.01.1990. In the meantime, UDR patta, pertaining to the subject land, was wrongly granted in the name of one Ponnusamy, who is father of 4^th respondent. Without knowing the said aspect, the petitioner purchased the subject property from his vendor-Irudhayam vide sale deed dated 22.08.1991.

3. Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner, being the absolute owner of the subject property, is in possession and enjoyment of the said property from the year 1991. However, without considering the same, at the instance of 4^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent had canceled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 20.01.2021.

4. He would also contend that the dispute herein is pertaining to the question of facts, which has to be dealt with by the appropriate Civil Court. However, the 3^rd respondent had inadvertently cancelled the patta, vide impugned order, without any authority or power. Hence, he requests this Court to set aside the impugned order.

5. Today, there is no representation on behalf of the 4^th respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the official respondents would fairly submit that the Authority concerned for cancellation of patta is 2^nd respondent, however, the 3^rd respondent had inadvertently passed the impugned order for cancellation of patta without any authority. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

8. In the case on hand, initially, the patta, pertaining to the subject property was in the name of petitioner’s vendor, who purchased the said property in the year 1990. Subsequently, it was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1991. From the date of purchase, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Under these circumstances, in the year 2021, at the instance of 4^th respondent, the patta, issued in name of the petitioner, was cancelled by the 3^rd respondent vide impugned order dated

20.01.2021.

9. Admittedly, the power to cancel a patta is vested with the 2^nd respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer). However, without any authority, the 3^rd respondent (The Tahsildhar) had passed the impugned order for cancellation of patta. In such case, certainly, the said impugned order is liable to be set aside.

10. Further, it appears that UDR patta was issued in name of the father of

4^th respondent. However, fact remains that prior to the UDR survey, the subject property was in the name of one Rukmani Ammal. Subsequently, it was sold to the petitioner’s vendor/Irudhayam vide sale deed dated 24.01.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the subject property from his vendor-Irudhayam vide sale deed dated 22.08.1991. From the year 1991, the petitioner, being the pattadharar, is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

11. When such being the case, it is clear that there is a title dispute over the subject property. Therefore, as rightly contended by the petitioner, the said dispute has to be considered by the appropriate Civil Court. However, without any Authority of jurisdiction, the 3^rd respondent had cancelled the patta vide the impugned order, which is not sustainable in law.

12. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.01.2021 is hereby