w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



A. Arumainathan v/s The District Revenue Officer, Kanjeepuram District & Others

    Writ Petition No.25086 of 2009

    Decided On, 26 September 2012

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN

    For the Petitioner: R. Gandhi, Senior Advocate for V.S. Sivasundaram, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R2, P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram, AGP, R3, S. Srinivasa Narayanan, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of 1st respondent relating to the impugned Notice dated 13.11.2009 in his proceedings Na.Ka.20459/2009 No.4 and quash the same and consequentially directing the 2nd respondent to hold enquiry in the appeal proceedings Na.4400/07/B dated  21/09/07 and pass final order under section 12 of T.N.Patta Pass Book Act 1983 (Act 4 of 1986) in respect of land comprised in S.Nos.15/1, 16/1 & 16/3 of Narasingakuppam Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kanjeepuram District.)

1. Heard Mr.R.Gandhi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing for the resp

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ndents.2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the first respondent had issued the impugned notice, dated 13.11.2009, without having the power or the authority to do so and therefore, the said notice is liable to be set aside.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further stated that the third respondent had submitted a representation before the Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, for the grant of a joint patta, in respect of the properties situated in old Paimash Nos.2A, 13/1 and 13/3, bearing survey Nos.15/1, 16/1 and 16/3, in Narasankuppam village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, had rejected the request of the petitioner for the grant of joint patta stating that the petitioner could get his relief only after establishing his rights, by approaching the appropriate civil forum, by way of a civil suit. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, dated 19.7.2007, the third respondent had filed an appeal, dated 27.7.2007, before the second respondent. While so, the first respondent had issued the impugned notice, dated 13.11.2009, asking the petitioner to appear before him for an enquiry, in spite of the appeal filed by the third respondent pending on the file of the second respondent.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that when an appeal had been preferred by the third respondent, before the second respondent, challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, dated 19.7.2007, under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983, it is not open to the first respondent to issue the impugned notice, dated 13.11.2009, calling the petitioner for an enquiry relating to the request of the third respondent for the issuance of a joint patta, in respect of the properties in question.5. It had also been stated that the impugned notice of the the first respondent, dated 13.11.2009, had not been issued, under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983. It is the second respondent, who has the power and the authority to decide the appeal filed by the second respondent against the order of the Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram Taluk. Thereafter, it would be open to the parties concerned to file a revision, as per Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983, if so advised.6. It had been further stated that the petitioner had also obtained a judgment and decree, in O.S.No.36 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif–cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, declaring his title, in respect of the properties in question. As such, it is for the second respondent to decide the issues arising for his consideration in the appeal filed by the third respondent, dated 27.7.2007.7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first and the second respondents, it has been stated that the application had been filed by the third respondent for rectification of the defects in the Updating Registry Accounts and therefore, it does not fall under the purview of Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983. The subject matter is not pending for consideration before the second respondent, under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983, as alleged by the petitioner. The second respondent, after completing the enquiry, had submitted a report to the first respondent, who is the competent authority to pass the orders relating to the rectification of the defects in the Updating Registry Accounts, in view of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.385, Revenue Department, dated 17.8.2004.8. It has also been stated that, in the impugned notice, dated 13.11.2009, issued by the first respondent, there is no mention of Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983. As such, it cannot be stated that there are parallel proceedings being conducted by the first and the second respondents.9. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent had submitted that it cannot be said by the petitioner that the first respondent does not have the power or the authority to issue the impugned notice, dated 13.11.2009. Even though the third respondent had filed an appeal before the second respondent, challenging the order of the Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram, dated 19.7.2007, it is for the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, based on the enquiry to be conducted by him, pursuant to the impugned notice, dated 13.11.2009. It is for the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him, before the first respondent, during the enquiry to be held by the said authority. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions."1. VISHWAS FOOTWEAR COMPANY LTD., Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANCHEEPURAM (2011 (5) CTC 94).2. S.VISWANATHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT (2011) 7 MLJ 1115)."11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned notice, dated 13.11.2009, issued by the first respondent. The second respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the third respondent, dated 27.7.2007, considering the issues raised by the third respondent, as well as the petitioner in the present writ petition.12. It is also made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the objections available to him under law, including the grounds raised in the present writ petition. Thereafter, it is for the second respondent to consider the rival claims of the petitioner, as well as the third respondent and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as per law. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the second respondent to consider the issues raised by the parties concerned relating to his jurisdiction to hear the appeal, dated 27.7.2007, filed by the third respondent, as a preliminary issue, keeping in view the provisions of Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983, and the Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.385, Revenue Department, dated 17.8.2004. The second respondent shall pass appropriate orders, as directed by this Court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the third respondent and the other parties concerned, if any.The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
OR
Also