Revenue authorities lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon title disputes or alter revenue records while a civil suit regarding the property is pending between the parties.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned proceedings dated

12.09.2022 passed by the 1^st respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the respondent had arrived at a conclusion that the present dispute can be resolved only by the Civil Court. In such case, they are supposed to have suggested the parties to approach an appropriate Civil Court. However, in spite of arriving at such a conclusion, the respondent had proceeded to pass the impugned order with a direction to delete the petitioner’s name and include the 4^th respondent’s name in the revenue records of the subject land. Hence, this writ petition. 3. In reply, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would submit that in this case, the official respondents had arrived at a conclusion that the 4^th respondent is entitled for patta and hence, passed the impugned order to include the name of the 4^th respondent after deleting the petitioner’s name. Further, he pointed out the liberty granted by the official respondents to the parties to approach the Civil Court. Hence, he would contend that there is no error or illegality on the part of the official respondents. It was also brought to the knowledge of this Court that a civil suit is pending between the parties.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents would submit that the impugned order was passed only based on the available records. Even if there is any grievance, the liberty was granted to the parties, vide impugned order, to approach the Civil Court within a period of

30 days. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on records.

6. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the official respondents had adjudicated the matter and arrived at a conclusion that the 4^th respondent is entitled for patta, pertaining to the subject property and passed the impugned order to delete the name of the petitioner and include the name of 4^th respondent. In the last paragraph of the impugned order, it was stated that “if there is any disagreement in the order, liberty was granted to the parties to resolve the issue by approaching the appropriate Civil Court within a period of

30 days.”

7. In the case on hand, the dispute between the parties is with regard to the title over the subject property. At any cost, the title dispute cannot be decided by the official respondents. When such being the case, the official respondents are supposed to have referred the parties to approach Civil Court without making any amendments in the revenue records. Without doing so, the respondents had passed the impugned order with a direction to delete the name of the petitioner and include the name of 4^th respondent. Pursuant to the said order, the patta, pertaining to the subject property, was issued in the name of 4^th respondent. Further, it was brought to the knowledge of this Court that a civil suit is pending between the parties.

8. In view of the above, it is clear that the impugned order came to be passed by the respondents without any authority or jurisdiction. In such case, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2022. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The patta stands restored in the name of the petitioner. If any application is made with regard to the issuance of patta, the same shall be considered subject to the outcome of civil suit, which is pending between the parties.

9. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.