Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes confirmed by civil courts, and cancellation of patta solely based on a pending review application or appeal against such a confirmed title is legally unsustainable.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated

02.02.2021 passed by the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the suit for declaration with regard to the title of the subject property was pending between the petitioner’s vendor and the 3^rd respondent in OS.No.371/1996. The said suit was decreed in favour of the 3^rd respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the appeal was filed by the petitioner’s vendor in AS.No.6 of 2000. The said appeal was allowed vide judgement and decree dated 02.11.2004. Against the said order, the 3^rd respondent filed a second appeal in SA.No.1178 of 2005. At this juncture, the petitioner, being a lis pendens purchaser, had purchased the subject property vide sale deed dated 22.08.2012. Thereafter, the said second appeal was dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2020 and the title was confirmed in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, patta was issued in the name of the petitioner on 23.07.2020.

3. Further he would submit that a review application in Rev.Appln.No.80 of 2025 was filed by the 3^rd respondent, on 20.07.2020, against the judgement and order dated 05.06.2020 passed in SA.No.1178 of 2005. Merely, by citing the said review application, the impugned order came to be passed by the 1^st respondent for cancellation of patta issued in the name of the petitioner, in total non-application of mind. Hence, this petition.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent had confirmed the aspect that a review application was filed by the 3^rd respondent against the judgement and order dated 05.06.2020 passed in SA.No.1178 of 2005 and citing the said review application, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent for cancellation of patta issued in the name of the petitioner.

5. Further, he would submit that after the filing of this petition, the aforesaid review application was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2025. Aggrieved over the said dismissal order, the 3^rd respondent had preferred a SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was pending for condonation of delay. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

6. On the other hand, by referring the paragraph No.12 of the counter, the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents would submit that based on the opinion of the learned Government Pleader, the impugned order was passed and the patta, issued in favour of the petitioner, was cancelled. 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, a suit was filed by the petitioner’s vendor against the 3^rd respondent in OS.No.371 of 1996 before the District Munsif Court, Jayakondan. The said suit was decreed in favour of the 3^rd respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the appeal was filed by the petitioner’s vendor in AS.No.6 of 2000. The said appeal was allowed vide judgement and decree dated 02.11.2004. Against the said judgement, the 3^rd respondent filed a second appeal in SA.No.1178 of 2005 before this Court. Pending the second appeal, the petitioner had purchased the subject property vide sale deed dated 22.08.2012. Thereafter, the said second appeal was dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2020 and the title was confirmed in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, patta was issued in the name of the petitioner on 23.07.2020.

9. In such case, it is clear that the petitioner’s title over the property was duly confirme