Revenue authorities cannot cancel long-standing patta records without providing prior notice (violation of natural justice) nor adjudicate title disputes between private parties, as such power rests exclusively with the Civil Court.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated

06.05.2021 & 07.08.2023.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the absolute owner of the subject land, in S.No.5/2 to the extent of 0.82.5 ares and 5/3 to the extent of 0.54.0 ares situated at Semmanatham Village, Yercaud Taluk, Salem District. Though the said property was mortgaged, subsequently, the loan amount was repaid by the petitioners. Thereafter, from the year 2011, the petitioners are in the possession of the subject property. Under these circumstances, due to some interference on the part of the 4^th respondent, the petitioners had filed a suit before the Civil Court in OS.Nos.106 & 130 of 2021 for permanent injunction. Pending the said suit, an application was made by the 4^th respondent. The said application was disposed of by the 2^nd respondent vide impugned orders and consequently, the patta, stands in the name of the petitioners, was cancelled. Hence, this petition.

3. Further, he would submit that the impugned orders came to be passed by the 2^nd respondent without providing any prior notice or opportunity to the petitioners, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Against the said order, an appeal was filed before the 1^st respondent. However, the said appeal was not disposed of by the 1^st respondent citing the reason of pending aforesaid suits. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents would submit that after the receipt of application from the 4^th respondent, the official respondents had verified with regard to the possession of the property. Upon such verification, they came to know that the 4^th respondent is in possession of the subject property. Hence, the impugned order came to be passed based on the said possession.

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

6. In the case on hand, the main grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the removal of petitioners’ name from the patta, pertaining to the subject land and the issuance of patta in the name of the 4^th respondent. According to the petitioners, they are in possession of the subject land for more than 4 decades. However, at the instance of 4^th respondent, the petitioners’ patta was cancelled and the same was re-issued in the name of 4^th respondent vide impugned order.

7. In this case, the patta was already issued in petitioners’ name and the said aspect was well within the knowledge of the official respondents. In such case, it is mandatory for the official respondents to issue notice to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. However, without providing any opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed, merely based on the occupation/possession of the subject land, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

8. Apart from the above, the issue involved in this case is with regard to the title of the subject land. The said dispute has to be decided only by the appropriate Civil Court and the official respondents have no power or authority to decide the same. If any such dispute is raised before the official respondents, they are supposed to have refer the parties to approach the appropriate Civil Court. However, in this case, it is a quite surprise for this Court to know that patta, which was issued to the petitioner before a period of 40 years, was cancelled by the official respondents merely based on the possession of 4^th respondent. Even if the 4^th respondent is in p