AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the
prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus. In fact, prayer made is in the nature of prohibition, restraining the first Respondent from
holding enquiry and passing orders in the appeal dated 31.10.2007, preferred by the third Respondent, under reference number Na.
Ka.6505/2007/A dated Nil, pending the disposal of the civil suit No. O.S. No. 169 of 2008.
It is not in dispute that order was passed by the second Respondent u/s 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred
to as ''Act''). u/s 12 of the Act, appeal is provided to the aggrieved party, against order of the Tahsildar under the Act. The party has further
remedy of filing revision u/s 13 of the Act.
Section 14 of the Act bars of suits against the Government or any officer of the Government with respect to any claim with regard to entry made
Alternative remedy however is provided to the party, to dispute the question of title in the civil suit, and proviso to Section 14, makes it
mandatory on the Revenue authorities under the Act to accept decision in the civil suit, finally passed.
M/s. GWL Properties Limited, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildar filed an appeal u/s 12 of the Act, before the first
Respondent, which is pending.
M/s. GWL Properties Limited approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 17743 of 2009 without impleading the Petitioner as party to the said
writ petition. The writ petition was disposed off by this Court by directing the first Respondent to dispose of the appeal pending before it within a
period of eight weeks.
The Petitioner has now challenged the proceedings before the first Respondent on the ground that remedy under Sections 12 and 14 is
independent of each other, and once the third Respondent has chosen to file civil suit, it is not open to him to prosecute appeal, u/s 12 of the Act.
The case of the Petitioner is that the proceedings before the first Respondent are vitiated and are without jurisdiction, due to pendency of suit
before the Civil Court.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the first Respondent is interested in third Respondent, as he has filed counter to
the writ petition, whereas third Respondent has chosen not to file any counter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on this score.
On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the Petitioner. The first Respondent is bound to comply with the order passed by
this Court, directing him to dispose off the appeal within a period of eight weeks. The first Respondent is, under legal obligation, to file counter in
pursuance to notice issued by this Court. The filing of counter by Respondent No. 1, therefore, does not lead to conclusion that the first
Respondent is interested in third Respondent.
The filing of suit u/s 14 of the Act cannot be ground for stay of proceedings in the appeal, unless injunction is granted by the Civil
The reading of proviso to Section 14 of the Act, shows that order passed by Civil Court will be binding on Tahsildar, the first Respondent and
also the revisional authority, i.e. the Government. Even otherwise, the Petitioner is aggrieved with the proceedings before second Respondent, the
filing of writ is not the remedy. The Petitioner''s remedy is to approach Civil, or the appellate authority for necessary relief. The filing of suit does
not give any right to the Petitioner, to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, as the appellate authority u/s 12 can decide all the questions raised.
Similarly, Civil Court can also pass appropriate orders, on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Finding no merit in the petition, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.