Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes; must refer to civil court.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceeding issued by the 2nd respondent vide his proceeding in Pa.Mu.Pi4/28795/2019 dated 10.02.2021 to quash the same and further to direct the 2nd respondent herein to pass orders afresh by hearing all the necessary parties by issuing notices to them and by perusing the revenue records available in his office.

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceeding issued by the 2nd respondent vide his proceeding in Pa.Mu.Pi4/28795/2019 dated 10.02.2021 and further to direct the 2nd respondent herein to pass orders afresh by hearing all the necessary parties by issuing notices to them and by perusing the revenue records available in his office.

2.The brief facts are that the property in old Survey No.158/1 and new Survey No.36/4 to an extent of 1 acre 21 cents was owned by the Late.Nagalingam Aachari, who is the petitioner's great grandfather. According to the petitioner, the great grandfather has gifted the said land to the temple namely, Sri Kammalachi Amman Temple. It was gifted by Govindasami and N.Rajagopalan, who are 1st and 3rd sons of Nagalingam Aachari through settlement deed Doc.No.341 of 1968, dated 27.02.1968. The said Nagalingam Aachari has gifted his share in the same property in favour of the same temple through Doc.No.1183 of 1993 dated 22/10/1993. Now, the petitioner is submitting that there is a difference in the survey number. The old survey number and the new survey number are not correlating. However, the said discrepancy was not taken note of by the respondents. Further, the petitioner submitted that the DRO has passed an order dated 30.10.2018, wherein he has stated that there is no correlation. But the subsequent DRO has passed the impugned order stating that both could be identified and has stated the earlier survey number is 158/1 and the new survey number is 36/1. Since there are two orders, the petitioner is claiming that it has to be reheard.

3.This Court is of the considered opinion that if it is remitted back, it will not serve the purpose because two different orders have been passed by the authorities and it has to be tested independently. Therefore, the appropriate remedy would be the suit. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court if he is aggrieved by the impugned order.

4.A similar issue was raised before the Honourable Division Bench in W.A.No.1275 of 2006 wherein vide judgment, dated 28.07.2011, reported 2011 (5)

CTC 94, it is held as under:

17. The question as to whether the revenue authorities be it the Tahsildar exercising power under section 3 or under section 5 or under section 10 or the Revenue Divisional Officer exercising power under section 12, can consider only a prima facie case as to the entitlement of a person or persons for issuance of patta. In the event such officers encounter a dispute which could be resolved only by a competent civil Court, they would not have jurisdiction to enter into such civil dispute for adjudication. To this extent, the judgments in Kuppuswami Nainar's case followed in Chockkappan'c case may be relied upon. The learned Judge in the order under appeal has also relied upon those judgments and we are in agreement with the same.

...

20. It is the specific case of the appellant herein that the property was initially registered in the name of one Ramanathan and others, who were granted Patta No.243 in the year 1963. Thereafter, the property was conveyed to one Palani and he was