Madras High Court
Singaram Chettiyar vs The District Revenue Officer on 1 July, 2015
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.07.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P(MD)No.19429 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 of 2015
Singaram Chettiyar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Pudukkottai.
2.Govindan Chettiyar ... Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first
respondent in See.Ma.Ka.No.7692/2010 D3 dated 14.10.2014 and quash the same.
!For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar,
Govt. Advocate for R.1
Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.J.Anandakumar for R.2
Date of reserving the order : 03.06.2015
Date of pronouncing the order : 01.07.2015
:ORDER
Seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondent in See.Ma.Ka.No.7692/2010 D3 dated 14.10.2014, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is as follows:
2.1. According to the petitioner, he purchased the following properties measuring the total extent of 8.89.5 hectares, during 1986 - 1987 in the name of his mother, namely, Rajammal:
Survey Numbers Extent of the Properties S.F.No.754/3 1.34.5 Hectares S.F.No.766/1 1.08.5 Hectares S.F.No.777/3 0.83.5 Ares S.F.No.780/10 0.81.0 Ares S.F.No.780/11 0.73.0 Ares S.F.No.780/3 0.81.0 Ares S.F.No.780/4 0.81.0 Ares S.F.No.780/5 0.81.0 Ares S.F.No.780/6 0.81.0 Ares S.F.No.780/9 0.81.0 Ares The patta was also transferred in the name of his mother and she died on 17.07.1994 and thereafter, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. Meanwhile, the second respondent, who is the husband of the petitioner's sister, had managed to get a Will executed by the father of the petitioner as though it had been executed by the deceased mother of the petitioner in favour of the second respondent in the year 2004, in order to secure the collateral security for his contract works in Singapore. It is further stated that though the alleged Will was executed by the father of the petitioner and he put his signature therein, his mother, namely, deceased Rajammal did not put her signature in the said Will. Thereafter, the second respondent got transfer of patta in his name without notice to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, who cancelled the patta issued in favour of the second respondent and found that the alleged Will was a forged one.
2.2. Subsequently, the petitioner sold 14 acres in the above said properties to one Vinoth Kumar by a registered sale deed, dated 17.02.2010.
In the meantime, the second respondent and his son-in-law entered into a collusive sale agreement and filed a suit in O.S.No.100 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai and obtained a decree. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.214 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Keeranoor, seeking declaration and injunction and it is pending.
2.3. Pendente lite, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 14.10.2014, transferring the patta in favour of the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Though the matter has been admitted by this Court on 02.12.2014, the first respondent has not filed any counter affidavit so far.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is inter alia, stated thus:
4.1. The second respondent had purchased the said properties in the name of his mother-in-law, namely, deceased Rajammal, who was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties and patta was also issued in her name.
4.2. The said Rajammal executed a Will dated 18.01.1993 bequeathing the properties in favour of the second respondent and she died on 17.07.1994.
4.3. After her death, the properties were devolved on the second respondent and he approached the Tahsildar, Kulathur, seeking patta and accordingly, the patta was transferred in his name, by proceedings dated 14.10.2004.
4.4. However, on the appeal filed by the father of the petitioner/father-in-law of the second respondent, the same was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, by proceedings dated 05.02.2010 and it was restored in the name of the deceased Rajammal.
4.5. Challenging the same, the second respondent filed a revision before the first respondent and it is still pending.
4.6. Pendency of the said revision, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.214 of 2011 on the file of the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Keeranoor, for declaration and injunction.
4.7. It is the specific case of the second respondent that the petitioner had filed the above said suit seeking declaration and injunction alone and he did not seek any relief with regard to the alleged Will, dated 18.01.1993.
4.8. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, while cancelling the patta issued in favour of the second respondent, did not give any opportunity of hearing to the second respondent and hence, the first respondent cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and transferred the patta in the name of the second respondent.
4.9. The stand taken by the petitioner that the Will alleged to have been executed by the deceased Rajammal was not a registered one and hence, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling the patta granted in favour of the second respondent is sustainable, could not be countenanced.
4.10. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent, transferring the patta in the name of the second respondent, warrants no interference and hence, prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:
5.1. Originally, the patta was transferred in the name of the petitioner's mother and after her demise on 17.07.1994, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties.
5.2. While so, the second respondent had fabricated the documents and got transfer of patta clandestinely, in his name, to secure the collateral security for his contract works abroad.
5.3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, on appeal, had rightly cancelled the patta issued in favour of the second respondent, finding that the alleged Will was a forged one and thereafter, the petitioner sold some properties to one Vinoth Kumar, by a registered sale deed, dated 17.02.2010.
5.4. However, the second respondent and his son-in-law colluded each other by entering into a sale agreement and filed a suit in O.S.No.100 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai and obtained a decree also.
5.5. The petitioner has also filed a suit in O.S.No.214 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Keeranoor, seeking declaration and injunction.
5.6. The main contention put forth by the petitioner is that during the pendency of the civil suit filed by the petitioner, the first respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order, by deciding their rights and transferred the patta in favour of the second respondent, which, warrants interference by this Court.
5.7. The first respondent cannot decide the title dispute between the parties and when there is a title dispute, the parties should be directed to approach the civil Court for adjudication of the title dispute and in the case on hand, admittedly, the civil suit filed by the petitioner is pending. In support of the said contention, he relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., v. The District Collector, Kancheepuram reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94.
5.8. When a decree is passed by the competent civil Court, the first respondent can act according to the decree and make necessary changes in the patta pass book and in the absence of the same, the impugned order passed by the first respondent has no legs to stand. To strengthen the same, he placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in T.R.Dinakaran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer reported in 2012 (3) CTC 823.
5.9. Thus, he prayed for quashing the impugned order passed by the first respondent.
6. Per contra, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.J.Anandakumar, learned Counsel for the second respondent, made the following submissions:
6.1. First of all, the petitioner has got no grievance at all, as any final decree passed by the civil Court would have a bearing on the proceedings of the revenue authorities and therefore, the grievance as projected by the petitioner is not tenable in law.
6.2. The first respondent has rightly found that the Revenue Divisional Officer, while cancelling the patta, had not given an opportunity of hearing to the second respondent and therefore, the impugned order is sustainable in law.
6.3. The first respondent has categorically stated in the impugned order that it would be subject to the decree passed by the civil Court and in such circumstances, the writ petition filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in law.
6.4. Moreover, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner ought to have approached the civil Court for appropriate remedy as per law.
6.5. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.
7. Also, Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer had cancelled the patta granted in favour of the second respondent, without affording an opportunity of hearing to him and that in the impugned order itself, the first respondent has made it clear that the same would be subject to the outcome of the decree passed by the civil Court and therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.
8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record.
9. At the outset itself, I would like to point out that when the Civil Court is seized of the matter, the revenue authorities would be more cautious in entertaining the issues regarding the patta transfer and if so, they can very well relegate the parties to adjudicate the issue before the civil Court in the pending suit.
10. Here, in the case on hand, the petitioner claimed that he purchased the properties in question in the name of his mother, namely, Rajammal, in whose name, the patta also transferred. After her demise, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. When that being so, the second respondent got transfer of patta in respect of the said properties in his name without any notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, who cancelled the patta issued in favour of the second respondent. In the meantime, the petitioner sold 14 acres in the above said properties to one Vinoth Kumar by a registered sale deed, dated 17.02.2010.
Thereafter, the second respondent and his son-in-law filed a suit in O.S.No.100 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai and obtained a decree. Hence, the petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.214 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Keeranoor, seeking declaration and injunction, which is also pending. While so, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 14.10.2014, transferring the patta in favour of the second respondent.
11. It is well settled proposition of law that pending the lis, the transfer of patta effected in favour of either of the parties would be subject to the outcome of the civil suit.
12. In Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., v. The District Collector, Kancheepuram reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94, the Division Bench of this Court has elaborately dealt with the issue regarding the powers of the revenue authorities in patta transfers, when there is a title dispute between the parties and held as follows:
"12. The only provision available for modification of the entries in the patta pass book is Section 10, which reads as under:-
"10. Modification of entries in the patta pass-book.(1) Where any person claims that any modification is required in respect of any entry in the patta pass-book already issued under section 3 either by reason of the death of any person or by reason of the transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any other subsequent change in circumstances, he shall make an application to the Tahsildar for the modification of the relevant entries in the patta pass-book.
(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the documents, if any, relied on by the applicant as evidence in support of his claim.
(3)(a) Before passing an order on an application under sub-section (1), the Tahsildar shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and shall also give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing. If the Tahsildar decides that any modification should be made in respect of entries in the patta pass-book, he shall pass an order accordingly and shall make such consequential changes in the patta pass-book, as appear to him to be necessary, for giving effect to his order.
(b) If the Tahsildar decides that there is no case for effecting any modification in the entries in the patta pass-book, he shall reject the application.
(c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall contain the reasons for such order and shall be communicated to the parties concerned in such manner as may be prescribed. By that provision, in the event any modification is required on an application by any person, it can be made either by reason of the death of any person or by reason of transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any subsequent change in the circumstances. This section also does not empower the Tahsildar to cancel the patta already granted, as the power of the Tahsildar to modify the entries in the patta pass book is limited only in case of death of the person who was holding the patta pass book or by reason of the transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any other subsequent change in the circumstances. In the event an application is made that the patta pass book has been wrongly issued in favour of any person and consequently claiming title over the land entitling such person to grant of patta, that person can only file a suit for declaration that the entries made in the patta pass book should be cancelled and consequently for a mandatory injunction for grant of patta."
13. Section 12 contemplates that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Tahsildar under the Act may within such period as may be prescribed appeal to such authority as may be prescribed. Rule 14 of the Rules empowers such an appeal to be filed before the officer in charge of Revenue Division in whose jurisdiction the property lies within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. In order to invoke the provisions of appeal, there must be an order passed by the Tahsildar either under section 3 or under section 5 or under section 10 of the Act and any person aggrieved by such order made by the Tahsildar could prefer appeal within a period of thirty days from the receipt of the order under Rule 14. If the above provisions of sections 3, 5 and 10 are read together with the rule 14, the only conclusion which could be arrived at by the Court is in the event an application is made for issuance of patta and if it is denied or if it is granted in favour of somebody, the person aggrieved, as the case may be, can file an appeal under section 12 of the Act. Hence, the provisions of section 12 must be read to empower the Revenue Divisional Officer to entertain an appeal challenging the grant of patta in favour of a person or persons and consequently seek for cancellation of the same. Nevertheless, such request must be made strictly in terms of the provisions of section 12 read with rule 14 of the rules, which prescribe a mandatory period of thirty days from the date when the entry was made.
14. Keeping the above in mind, the issue is to be considered. The writ appeal raises two important questions. Firstly, whether the Revenue Divisional Officer would be competent to go into the disputed question of title while considering the application for cancellation of patta. In fact, the law on this is not res integra. As early as in the year 1995, a Division Bench of this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai and others, 1995 (1) MLJ 426, has observed as follows:
"3. No provision is brought to our notice in the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue taking away the jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate upon the question of title relating to immovable property. Revenue Officers in a patta proceeding may express their views on the question of title, but such expression of opinion or decision is not conclusive and it is only intended to support their decision for granting patta. Ultimately, it is the civil court which has to adjudicate the question as to whether the person claiming patta is the title holder of the land. Even if the revenue authorities decide the question of title, that will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the civil court, which has to decide the question without reference to the decision of the revenue authorities.
4. Now the question for consideration is, having regard to the fact that the District Revenue Officer has expressed his opinion on the question of title, whether the order under question should be interfered with. It may be pointed out here that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the question of title regarding immovable property cannot properly be gone into, because a mass of evidence may be required for adjudicating the question of title. Even if we are to interfere with the order under appeal, it is the other party, who has to go to a civil court and establish title. As far as the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned, it does not matter to it whether A party goes to civil court or B party. Therefore, we are of the view that the question of title has to be decided by the civil court without reference to the order under question. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order challenged in the writ petition. However, we make it clear that in the event a suit for declaration of title and for appropriate consequential relief is filed, the civil court shall decide such a suit, without reference to the findings recorded by respondents 1 and 2 in the impugned orders, but only on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them before it. We also make it clear that any opinion expressed by the learned single Judge, contrary to what we have stated above, shall also stand modified accordingly. With these observations, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.15872 of 1994 filed along with the appeal is also dismissed."
15. Following the said judgment, one of us (DMJ) in Chockkappans case has held that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to go into the disputed questions of title at the time when an application for cancellation of patta is being considered. As far as this law is concerned, there cannot be a second opinion as to the limited jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer only to find out prima facie as to the title and when the title is in dispute and there are rival claimants, he should refer the parties to civil Court for adjudication and depending upon the decree that may be passed by the civil Court, relevant entries in the patta could be effected by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
***** *****
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.
***** *****
19. Nevertheless, the core question involved in the writ petition is as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it could be entertained in the event patta has been granted in favour of a particular individual. On the strength of the title or possession, if any other person makes an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of that patta and in the event both the individuals claim title over the property, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot adjudicate such disputed questions and accepting the case of the other person, he cannot cancel the patta. The right course to be adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in such case is only to refer the applicant who has come before him seeking for cancellation of patta to civil Court, especially when his claim is disputed by the individual who is holding the patta granted by the competent authority. In the event the Revenue Divisional Officer by exceeding his jurisdiction decides the question of title and cancels the patta, certainly the aggrieved person can approach this Court by way of a writ petition on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer was not competent to go into the title. The question of alternative remedy is not available to the aggrieved person as for the very same reason the District Collector also cannot go into the disputed question regarding the title or possession, as the case may be, in the event an appeal is filed."
13. In the light of the dictum laid down in the above decision of the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not for the revenue authorities to delve deep into the disputed questions of title when an application for cancellation of patta is being considered and if there is any rival claim, then, the only course to be adopted by the revenue authorities, is to relegate the parties to the competent civil Court, more particularly, when the claim of a party is disputed by the other individual who is holding the patta granted by the competent authority.
14. Admittedly, the second respondent got transfer of patta in his name in respect of the above said properties and on appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the same. Questioning the said cancellation, the second respondent filed the revision before the first respondent, who, by virtue of the impugned order, restored the patta in the name of the second respondent, however, subject to the outcome of the civil suit, which is pending.
15. What could be understood from the above, is, the title dispute is being entertained by the revenue authorities, either by granting patta in favour of one party or cancelling the same in respect of the other party, which, in the firm view of this Court, is bad in law. Once the revenue authorities find that there is a rival claim over the issue, it is for them to relegate the parties to seek their appropriate remedy before the competent civil Court, unless, there is a decree of a civil Court in favour of either of the parties. Though it is the contention of the second respondent that he had obtained a decree in his favour before the civil Court, the first respondent, while passing the impugned order has not considered the same and the impugned order has not passed on the strength of the findings rendered by the civil Court on the issue on hand.
16. At this juncture, this Court raised a query to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, since the petitioner has sold 14 acres out of the total extent of the properties to a third party, who has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and if at all, there is any grievance regarding the transfer of patta, certainly, it is only for the purchaser of the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is seeking remedy before this Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent, however, this Court holds that it could not be so, for, the rival parties are agitating their claims again and again before the revenue authorities, which, would ultimately lead them to move before the civil Court in accordance with law.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that there is a serious title dispute between the parties concerned, that the revenue authorities ought not to have entertained the same, instead, the parties be relegated to the competent civil Court for proper remedy available to them, but, it is otherwise. Even then, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the first respondent, need not be interfered with, for the reason that the first respondent has categorically held that the transfer of patta ordered to be effected, would be subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit in this regard.
18. Therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of, with the following directions:
(i) The parties concerned, namely, the petitioner as well as the second respondent, and all the interested parties, if any, are at liberty to move before the civil Court for resolving the title dispute;
(ii) As and when the civil Court decides on the issue, the revenue authorities can act accordingly and effect transfer of patta in the name of the party concerned;
(iii) The impugned order passed by the first respondent, is subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit;
(iv) The parties concerned shall abide by the decree of the civil Court and approach the revenue authorities for appropriate remedy in the manner known to law.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
To The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai.