Madras High Court
M.Subramanian vs V.K.R.Subramania Athithan ... 1St on 17 July, 2014
Bench: M.Jaichandren, R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.A.(MD)No.737 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 1.M.Subramanian 2.Chellamal ... Appellants/ Respondents 4 & 5 Vs. 1.V.K.R.Subramania Athithan ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District. 4.The Tahsildar, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents 2 to 4/Respondents 1 to 3 5.V.K.R.Seethalakshmi 6.V.K.R.Ramadevi ... Respondents 5 & 6/Respondents 6 & 7 Prayer Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, against the order dated 11.04.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.19287 of 2013. !For Appellants ... Mr.R.Gowrishankar ^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Subramanian for R.1 Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Govt.Pleader for R.2 to R.4 Mr.P.Thiaga Rajan for R.5 & R.6 :JUDGMENT
The appellants, who are the respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition, have filed this writ appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 11.04.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.19287 of 2013, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the first respondent therein and gave liberty to the respondents 4 and 5 therein to approach the proper forum as per law.
2. The first respondent herein filed the writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed in Na.Ka.No.D3/38740/2012, dated 14.10.2013 by the first respondent therein and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 therein to restore the patta for S.No.568/1B1B1B measuring 5.25.0 Hectares of Melathiruchendur Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, in the name of the first respondent herein and the respondents 5 and 6 herein.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder as stated in the writ petition.
4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, are as follows:
4.1. The petitioner's paternal great great grandfather, by name, Subramania Aathitha Nadar owned 15 acres of land, out of 54.78 acres in S.No.568/1 in Mela Thiruchendur Village. In the Settlement Register of the year 1910, his great great grandfather was shown as one of the owners in S.No.568/1 and he was issued with Patta No.350. Thereafter, by a release deed dated 01.10.1923, his great grandfather, namely, Ramasamy Aathithan released his rights including the right in 15 acres of land in S.No.568/1 in favour of his son/petitioner's grandfather, viz, Subramania Aathithan, wherein, the petitioner's great grandfather has categorically stated that he owned 15 acres in S.No.568/1. Subsequently, by virtue of a cancellation deed dated 23.12.1923, the said release deed was cancelled due to family circumstances.
Thereafter, the original S.No.568/1 was subdivided and their property was subdivided as S.No.568/1B1B1 measuring 15 acres and Patta No.1351 was issued to his grandfather, V.K.R.Subramania Aathithan and he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. Meanwhile, the civil suits filed against him, ended in his favour. Since in the Patta No.1351, some other persons were wrongly shown as joint pattadhars, the third respondent, by order dated 22.02.1988, deleted the names of other persons and issued the patta in the name of his grandfather. After acquisition of land by the Government in S.No.568/1B1B1, the remaining land to the extent of 12.97 acres were subdivided and new S.No.568/1B1B1B was assigned. While so, the respondents 4 and 5 through their power agent, by name, P.A.Murugesan, approached the third respondent in the year 2008 stating that the father of the fourth respondent and the husband of the fifth respondent, Madasamy Nadar was also one of the owners of the land in S.No.568/1B1B1B and his name was deleted from the patta in the year 1988. The third respondent, by order dated 29.08.2008, dismissed the claim of the respondents 4 and 5 with a direction to approach the civil Court, since the same was made after the lapse of twenty years. Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent, the respondents 4 and 5 preferred an appeal before the second respondent, who, by order dated 07.08.2012 restored the names in the patta earlier. Challenging the same, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the first respondent, who, by order dated 14.10.2013, dismissed the same, against which, the writ petition has been filed.
4.2. The respondents 4 and 5 filed the counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition and contended that immediately after coming to know about the illegal patta transfer, they approached the third respondent and absolutely, there could be no laches on their part. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
4.3. Upon consideration of the materials available on record and also placing reliance 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, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the first respondent, besides, directing the respondents 4 and 5 to approach the proper forum in accordance with law.
4.4. Being dissatisfied with the same, the respondents 4 and 5 have filed the present writ appeal.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellants/respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition by directing the writ petitioner to approach the civil Court for appropriate relief and the reliance placed 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, is not sustainable, as the facts involved herein are totally different. He also contended that there is no title dispute pending before the civil Court between the appellants and the writ petitioner and only as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, the appellants had filed the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, challenging the deletion of the names in the patta. Further, he added that the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without approaching the civil Court, is not maintainable. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
6. Whereas the learned Counsel for the first respondent contended that the learned Single Judge has considered the issue elaborately and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of the first respondent therein, with a liberty to the appellants herein to move before the civil Court for appropriate relief.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, including the order of the learned Single Judge impugned herein.
8. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the property in question is the ancestral property of the writ petitioner, his mother and his sisters. The Tahsildar has passed the order dated 22.02.1988, by deleting the names of the other persons shown as joint pattadhars in the relevant patta. After a period of twenty long years, the respondents 4 and 5 through their power agent, moved an application before the Tahsildar, Thiruchendur Taluk, in the year 2008. However, the said application filed by them, was rejected by the Tahsildar, directing them to approach the civil Court for their remedy. Without doing so, the respondents 4 and 5 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruchendur, who, ordered to restore the patta in their favour. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner preferred a revision before the District Revenue Officer, Thiruchendur, who confirmed the order passed in the appeal. Being dissatisfied with the same, the writ petition has been filed.
9. The learned Single Judge has categorically found that since the appellants herein have not chosen to question the deletion of the name of the first appellant's father in the patta for more than twenty years, they cannot seek for restoration of patta in their names and the proper remedy for the appellants is only to approach the civil Court, as rightly directed by the Tahsildar. To arrive at such a conclusion, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Viswas Footwear Company Ltd., v. The District Collector, Kancheepuram reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94, to hold that if there is a dispute with regard to the title while applying for patta, the parties should be relegated to the competent civil Court for adjudication of their title dispute.
10. It was also brought to our notice that the Government by its G.O.(Ms)No.409, Revenue SSI(1) Department, dated 02.07.2008, wherein the Government has withdrawn the second revision powers conferred on the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, who, shall ensure that such revisions are returned with a direction to parties to approach the civil Court.
11. On perusal of the entire materials available on record, we find that once the Tahsildar rejected the claim for inclusion of name in the patta, the parties have to approach the civil Court for resolving the title dispute. In the case on hand, it is to be noted that the appellants started to claim title nearly after twenty years only before the Tahsildar, who ultimately, relegated them to move before the civil Court, but, they preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, the said appeal was considered and allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, by restoring the patta in the erstwhile names, as against which, a revision was also preferred by the writ petitioner, whereby the order passed in the appeal, has been upheld. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has come forward with the writ petition.
12. We find that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the claim of the writ petitioner and set aside the order passed by the first respondent and observed that the appellants herein are at liberty to approach the civil Court as per law. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, except to relegate the parties to move before the civil Court for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law. Upon filing such civil suit, the civil Court shall deal with the same on merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned single Judge on possession and enjoyment of the property in question.
13. In fine, the writ appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Tahsildar, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.