Madras High Court
A.S. Muthuswamy, A.S. Anantharaman, ... vs The District Collector, The Tahsildar ... on 13 March, 2003
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.
1. By consent of all the parties main Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The petitioners challenge the order of the second respondent-Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk granting Patta in C.A. No. 1033 of 2001 dated 24-12-2001.
2. Heard Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned senior counsel for the petitioners; Mr. D. Krishnakumar, Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2; and Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel for the third respondent.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that Revenue records clearly show that the properties covered in the impugned Patta stand in the name of late A.K. Ranganathan. Further, the Town Survey Register as in June, 2000, reflects the Block No. 27, T.S. No. 3, which correlates to Survey Nos. 230 part, 231 (part) and 227 (part) covering a total extent of land 8.73.000 Hectares are under the possession and enjoyment of the third respondent company along with the first petitioner herein. While so, it is stated by the petitioner that without considering the existing records, the second respondent issued a Patta in favour of the third respondent company alone in C.A. No. 1033 of 2001 dated 24-12-2002 for the properties comprised in Block No. 27, T.S. No. 3, without including the name of the first petitioner whose name is reflected in the Town Survey Register as on 30-6-2000. They came to know about the issuance of Patta in favour of the third respondent company only when a dispute arose regarding Agreement of Sale entered into between the third respondent company with one M/s. Aishwarya Promoters for the sale of the property. The petitioners and the legal heirs of (late) A.R. Swaminathan and his wife (late) A. Lakshmi have filed C.S.No. 67 of 2003 before this Court seeking partition of their 1/3 share in the residuary properties remained un-partitioned in the Hindu Undivided Family. Inasmuch as the respondent company has granted Patta in favour of third respondent without notice to the first petitioner, who is legally entitled to have the patta jointly along with the third respondent company, the same is invalid, void, abinitio and has to be quashed.
4. Pursuant to the notice, the third respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, disputing the claim of the petitioners. After furnishing details regarding various properties, it is stated that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition in C.S. No. 67 of 2003 before this Court and the third respondent is defending the suit on merits and on the grounds that there is no property available for partition. The third respondent has also furnished details regarding various sale deeds how the third respondent had acquired the properties. Inasmuch as the petitioners have already proceeded against the third respondent in the said civil suit and they (petitioners) are yet to establish their rights, they are not entitled to maintain the present writ petition.
5. Both the first petitioner and the third respondent in their respective affidavit and counter affidavit have furnished the factual details elaborately regarding various properties, the title deeds, entries in the Government records, possession etc. The main grievance of the petitioners is that inasmuch as the first petitioner is legally entitled to have Patta jointly along with the third respondent, in view of entries in many documents, including the Government records, the third respondent ought to have issued notice to the first petitioner before granting Patta exclusively to the third respondent. Admittedly, the petitioners and the legal heirs of late A.R. Swaminathan and his wife A. Lakshmi have filed a Civil Suit in C.S. No. 67 of 2003 before the Original Side of this Court praying for partition of 1/3 share in the residuary properties. According to the third respondent, they are contesting the suit on merits and on the grounds that there is no property available for partition. In such a circumstance, inasmuch as the petitioners have approached the Civil Court after getting decree in their favour, it would be open to them to approach the 2nd respondent for modification or correction in the Revenue Records, including Patta. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer a decision relied on by Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel for the third respondent, in Kuppuswami Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer, reported in 1995-1 M.L.J. 426. This Court in the said decision, while considering Patta proceedings and the expressing opinion, deciding about right to property by the Revenue Authorities and interference by this Court in a writ jurisdiction, has held as follows:- (para 4) "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 Art. 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 Art. 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?"
It is clear from the said decision that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the question of title regarding immovable property cannot be gone into because a mass of evidence may be required for adjudicating the question of title. In other words, the question of title has to be decided by the Civil Court without reference to the order passed by the other Authorities, including the Revenue Authority. I have already referred to the voluminous details furnished by the petitioners as well as third respondent in their affidavit and counter affidavit respectively. In such a circumstance, as observed by the Division Bench, and in view of the fact that the petitioners and others already filed Civil Suit No. 67/2003 before the Original Side of this Court, it is for them to pursue the same and after getting decree, it is open to approach the Revenue Authority for necessary correction/modification. It is also settled law that reliance of patta cannot be made to prove title as patta which mutates entries cannot have or distinguish right over property.
6. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any ground for interference with the Patta issued by the second respondent in favour of third respondent; accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the Revenue Authorities, after getting an order in the civil proceedings which they have already initiated. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps., are closed.