S. Padmanabhan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the first respondent, viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam.

The first respondent came to the conclusion that there is a serious dispute regarding certain immovable properties between the petitioner, who has been arrayed as a "B" party and the second respondent and others who have been arrayed as "A" party. In this regard, a criminal complaint was given and the matter was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer.

From the impugned order, it is seen that the enquiry was conducted by the first respondent on eight dates which have been given therein and considering the fact that pending enquiry, there is likelihood of breach of peace and also the fact that both ''A'' and ''B'' parties are having frequent quarrel against each other, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed that the parties shall not enter into the suit property.

The petitioner challenged the said order by filing this revision petition stating that the order passed by the first respondent prohibiting both the parties from entering into suit property is illegal. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has been prohibited from entering into the property where he is residing, viz., in S. No. 225/7.

The learned counsel for the second respondent pointed out that the property in question is owned by the second respondent''s wife and the document stands in her name. The second respondent has filed detailed counter affidavit in this revision petition stating as to how his wife became the owner of the property. Furthermore, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be stated to be residing in the said premises as seen from the document, viz., settlement deed dated 05.03.2007.The petitioner executed the settlement deed in favour of his P. Manju, in which, he has described the property as a vacant plot.

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the proceedings of the Block Development Officer, Tanjore dated 25.10.2002, wherein, a reminder has been sent to the Panchayat President, Mannargudi, with regard to the issuance of house tax receipt in the name of the petitioner''s daughter. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner is residing in the property. In the settlement deed dated 05.03.2007, the property has been described as vacant site. The proceedings of the Block Development Officer dated 25.10.2007 refers to a new house said to have been constructed in S. No. 225/7. Therefore, obviously, the construction should have been made after the settlement and the settlement itself had taken place in 2007 and since then, there appears to have been disputes. Pursuant to the orders passed by the first respondent, now, both the parties are not able to enter into the property in question.

In such circumstances, the only remedy open to both the petitioner and the second respondent is to approach the Civil Court. Either one of them has to approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate declaration of title and also for consequential injunction or the second respondent can establish a prima facie case for obtaining any interim orders. Therefore, on the grounds raised by the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be quashed. The criminal revision case stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to place all documents before the Civil Court and on such documents being placed by the petitioner, the Civil Court shall hear the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law.