AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Rajendran, J.—The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the District Revenue Officer, the first Respondent herein, dated 26.05.2009.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that the order of the District Revenue Officer clearly shows that the Petitioners, who are aggrieved as against the order, can only approach the Civil Court in respect of transfer of patta and the said finding of the District Revenue Officer is not maintainable. He would further submit that the Petitioners had made a Review application to the District Revenue Officer, seeking for a direction to dispose of his application alleged to be pending before the said Officer. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the District Revenue Officer, the first Respondent herein, dated 26.05.2009 and for a direction to consider the Review application of the Petitioners, dated 15.11.2010. The prayer in the Writ Petition is not at all maintainable, because once he challenges the order of the authority concerned, the further direction to review the order cannot be granted. Even otherwise, if he is taking into consideration the merits in this case, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would only contend in the affidavit that the Respondents 3 to 5 herein, who are the sons and brothers of the Petitioners father have created a forged partition deed and got the patta mentioned in the property in their name illegally and therefore, the Petitioners have filed a Petition before the second Respondent praying to change the patta in favour of the Petitioners herein. He would further contend that the second Respondent after hearing both sides, had held that the second Respondent has No. jurisdiction to decide the issue of the rectification of the defects under the UDR Scheme and only the District Revenue Officer is the competent officer to rectify the defects under the UDR Scheme and therefore, he has forwarded the same to the District Revenue Officer. The Petitioners only grievance is that after the reference has been given to the District Revenue Officer, the said Officer has not followed the procedure contemplated under law. Therefore, they have filed a Petition to review the order, which is now passed by the District Revenue Officer. As far as the procedure is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would only contend that the first Respondent has failed to see that the Respondents 3 to 5 themselves admits that the patta for the property was transferred in the name under the UDR Scheme as early as 1986 and it is revealed as per the documents. Therefore, he would only contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer''s recommendation has also been arbitrarily construed by the authority concerned. Hence, he would only request the Court that the Petitioners review application has to be considered setting aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer.
The Respondents 3 to 5 had filed a counter affidavit and contended that it has a long history, the properties were obtained in the oral partition held in the year 1955 and A.T. Krishnasamy Naicker''s Branch enjoyed the properties allotted to their share. A.T.Krishnasamy Naicker, father of the Respondents 3 to 5 died in the year 1975 and their other two brothers and sister partitioned the properties as per Document No. 1799/82 as a registered document. Thereafter, the patta was also changed in their names and they have paid Kist. Even there was a earlier suit in respect of property alleged to the share of A.T.Krishnasamy Naicker, O.S. No. 167 of 1960 declared the right of the Respondents 3 to 5 father, in fact, the partition deed has already been attested by the A.T.Krishnasamy Naicker and other members. According to the Respondents 3 to 5, suppressing all these material factors, the Petitioners have submitted a representation to the second Respondent, dated 14.10.2008, requesting to cancel the patta given in favour of the Respondents 3 to 5 and the same was forwarded to the first Respondent and the first Respondent after hearing the parties and the objections, clearly stated that the matter could be decided only in a Civil Forum. According to them, the direction given by the first Respondent is in accordance with law. The Petitioner wants to set at naught a relevant fact, which is more than 55 years old, is now seeking for a reconsideration under the guise of a review application. Hence, the application itself is not maintainable and the order of the District Revenue Officer is valid and correct.
The learned Additional Government Pleader would only contend that the District Revenue Officer after ascertaining the facts; giving opportunity to all the parties concerned; taking into consideration the long pending dispute; the rival claim of title made by all the parties concerned and also rightly followed the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 249, dated 02.07.2008, has referred the matter to the Civil Court, which is the competent Court, in respect of title and patta.
Heard all the parties.
The short point for consideration is that the writ Petitioner wants to set aside the order of the District Revenue Officer on the ground that the authority has not passed the order in accordance with law. Unfortunately, the Petitioner is not able to establish any one ground to set at naught the reasoned order of the District Revenue Officer. This Court does not find any infirmity in the reasoned order of the District Revenue Officer. In fact, the District Revenue Officer has only stated that since the matter is pertaining to the title, and the other side had established their right from the year 1955, at this point of time, it is not open to the Petitioner to seek for the cancellation of the patta especially when the patta has been granted under the UDR Scheme way back in the year 1986. So, the Petitioner has come belatedly with an application. In this connection, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 3 to 5 have categorically brought to the notice of this Court that even there was a partition way back in the year 1960 and everything has been settled then merely by filing the review application or the petition to cancel, he cannot re-open.
In any view of the matter, the Division Bench of this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer reported in 1995 Madras Law Journal, 426, even in the case of patta proceedings, this Court held that it is the Civil Court, which has to adjudicate the question as to whether the person claiming patta is the title owner 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. The District Revenue Officer has only referred the matter to be decided by the Civil Court. Paragraph No. 3 of the said judgment runs as follows:
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 proceedings 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.
In fact, in this case, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 3 to 5, it is purely a civil dispute and the authorities have rightly taken the decision that if the Petitioners have any grievance, they have only go to Civil Court. Under those circumstances, nothing survives in this Writ Petition and there is No. infirmity in the order passed by the District Revenue Officer. Furthermore, as stated supra, the Petitioners having challenged the order of the District Revenue Officer, cannot seek for a review of the order to be directed by this Court.
With the above said observation and direction, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed Non costs.