WA/3019/2026 of Ramesh Vs M.Chithra on 13 October 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the writ order dated 08.09.2026 passed in W.P.No.16022 of 2025. The sixth respondent is the appellant before this Court. The first respondent instituted a writ proceedings challenging the order of the Tahsildar, Kilpennathur Taluk dated 11.03.2025 stating that application seeking issuance of Patta will be entertained after disposal of the civil suit instituted by the appellant in O.S.No.470 of 2024 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The appellant and the first respondent are brother and sister. The first respondent / writ petitioner claims that the subject property is the self acquired property of their mother. The mother executed a sale deed in favour of the first respondent. Thus, the first respondent claims absolute right over the subject property. The appellant claims that it is a joint family property and instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.470 of 2024. The suit was dismissed was default and subsequently a petition for setting aside the order has been filed and the same is pending. The matter is adjourned to 29.10.2026. The first respondent submitted an application for issuance of Patta which was rejected on the ground that the dispute regarding title exists between the appellant and the first respondent.

3. In view of the above facts, this Court has to examine the relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 to ascertain whether Patta can be issued in favour of the first respondent based on his application.

4. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) speaks about the issuance of Patta. Sub-section (1) to Section 3 reads as follows: “ 3(1) : The Tahsildar shall issue a patta pass book to every owner in respect of land owned by him, on an application made by him in this behalf. Any application received under this section shall be acknowledged by the Tahsildar or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf.

5. Proviso to Section 14 also indicates that, if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta pass book under this Act, he may institute a suit for a declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the patta pass book shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.

6. Pertinently, Rule 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) states that, “in the event of the Tahsildar being satisfied that a dispute concerning ownership of patta is already pending in a Court or issues are raised before him which infringe on personal laws or laws of succession and all the parties interested do not agree on the ownership in writing, he shall direct the concerned parties to obtain order on the ownership from a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction before changing the entries as already recorded and existing in the various revenue records.”

7. A conjoint reading of Section 3(1) of the Act and Rule 4(4) of the Rules makes it clear that, in the event of dispute regarding title / ownership, the parties are to be relegated to approach the competent civil Court. In the event of any suit is pending, then also the Tahsildar cannot issue Patta during the pendency of the civil suit. It is needless to state that the revenue authorities are incompetent to adjudicate the issues. They are empowered to verify the documents and ascertain whether the person seeking Patta is entitled for the same. Once the revenue authorities traces out a dispute exists between the parties, he has to relegate the parties to approach the civil court to resolve the issues.

8. Patta would not confer any title. It is a revenue document maintained by the Government. Therefore, title / ownership is to be decided in the manner known to law. In the present case, admittedly a civil suit in O.S.No.470 of 2024 has been instituted. Though it was dismissed for default, an application to restore the suit is pending and a decision was taken by the Tahsildar to relegate the parties to resolve the dispute in the pending suit before the competent civil court.

9. Adjudication of disputed facts of civil nature is impermissible in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Civil rights of the parties are to be crystallised by conducting a trial nature proceedings based on the documents in original and evidences available on record. High Court cannot conduct roving enquiry in a writ proceedings to ascertain the civil rights between the parties. The power of High Court to interfere with the process through which a decision has been taken by the completent authorities and not the decision itself. Adjudication of disputes regarding civil rights would fall beyond the arms of powers of judicial review.

10. Therefore, the Writ Court is not expected to get carried on merely based on the facts stated by any of the parties in the affidavit or counter affidavit. Such pleadings require adjudication by way of trial and such pleadings would not constitute a ground to issue a direction crystallising the civil rights between the parties. Therefore, the Writ Courts have to look into the applicable provisions of law to decide the issues relating to issuance of Patta, cancellation of Patta or mutation of revenue records.

11. The Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, in unambiguous terms reiterates that the revenue authority, in the event of any doubt or dispute exists, has to relegate the parties to resolve the dispute through the competent civil court. That being the provisions under the Act, the High Court entertaining a writ petition and issuing a direction to grant Patta is not desirable and it would cause prejudice to the interests of any one of the parties or infringe the property rights of any person. Thus, the High Court, in such circumstances, is expected to exercise restraint and issue directions to the authorities to consider the issues by conducting an enquiry and take appropriate decision in the manner known to law. Thereafter, the parties have to approach civil court to establish their civil rights. This being the scheme under the Patta Passbook Act and the legal principles to be followed, the directions issued in the impugned writ order for issuance of Patta is running counter to the spirit of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act. Therefore, the parties are at liberty to establish their respective civil rights before the civil court.

12. Accordingly, the writ order dated 08.09.2026 passed in W.P.No.16022 of 2025 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KST

To

1. The Tahsildar Kilpennathur Taluk, Kilpennathur, Thiruvannamalai -604 601.

2. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildr Kilpennathur Taluk, Kilpennathur, Thiruvannamalai -604 601.

3. The Village Administrative Officer Anukkumalai Village, Neivanatham Post, Kilpennathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai -606754

4. The Village Administrative Officer Avoor Village , Neivanatham Post, Kilpennathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai -606754

5. The Taluk Surveyor Kilpennathur Taluk, Kilpennathur, Thiruvannamalai -604 601

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN J. KST WA No. 3019 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 26634 OF 2026 13-10-2026