WA/3149/2026 of Selvarasu Vs V.Arumugham on 12 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the writ order dated 09.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.30348 of 2024.

2. Appellants are third parties to the writ petition and instituted the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent on securing leave of this Court.

3. Leave was granted on the basis that the property rights of the appellants are infringed on account of the revised patta issued by the Tahsildar by including the portion of the land belonging to the appellants in pursuance to the writ order in question.

4. Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr.R.Shunmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent, Mr.K.Surender, learned Special Government Pleader for the Government argued elaborately for a considerable length of time. Since the arguments are heard in full, this Court is inclined to pass final order in the present writ appeal. FACTS IN BRIEF:

5. The facts in brief are that 1st respondent instituted writ proceedings challenging the internal report submitted by the Revenue Tahsildar, Cuddalore to the District Collector, Cuddalore vide the proceeding dated 17.07.2023 and the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore vide the proceedings dated 18.11.2023 stating that a civil suit in O.S. No. 388 of 2023 filed on 27.09.2023 is pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Neyveli and therefore the Revenue authorities cannot decide the civil dispute.

6. The writ Court allowed the writ petition by restoring the internal report addressed by the Tahsildar to the District Collector and by setting aside the orders of the DRO, Cuddalore dated 18.11.2023. In pursuance to the orders of the writ Court, a revised patta has been issued subdividing the lands and the portion of the land for which patta was granted in favour of the appellants were deleted and in the revised patta the land belonging to the appellants are reduced. In consequence, the said portion of the land was included in the new patta granted in favour of the first respondent in Patta No. 13655. Therefore, the appellants have chosen to file the present intra-court appeal. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

7. Learned Counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that appellants own a land to an extent of 76.5 cents in Survey No. 126/4, Abatharanapuram Village, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District. The 1st respondent would claim that he is the owner of the land to an extent of 56 cents, as per the document in his possession. The 1st respondent filed an application for grant of patta for 56 cents and during re-survey the authorities reduced the land belongs to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants instituted a civil suit in O.S. No. 388 of 2023.

8. During the pendency of the suit, a revised patta has been granted in favour of the 1st respondent to an extent of 56 cents and by reducing the land belonging to the appellants from 76.5 cents to 68 cents. Thus, the appellants have chosen to file the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:

9. Mr. Shanmuga Sundaram, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent would oppose by stating that as per the 1967 document, the first respondent owns 56 cents. In the year 2022, the authorities conducted re-survey without notice to the first respondent and reduced the extent of land from 56 cents to 44 cents. Therefore, he submitted an application based on the document that his land to an extent of 56 cents is to be confirmed as per the document and based on the patta granted earlier. During further survey, the authorities found that the land belonging to the 1st respondent was erroneously taken away and accordingly passed an order.

10. Tahsildar submitted a report on 17.07.2023. The RDO confirmed the report by conducting an independent enquiry. During the pendency of the appeal and before pursuing final orders, the appellants filed a civil suit in O.S.No.388 of 2023. Therefore, the suit itself has been instituted with an idea to stall the revenue proceedings already concluded before the Tahsildar and during the pendency of the appeal proceedings before the DRO. Considering these facts, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the orders of the DRO and confirmed the orders passed by the Tahsildar as well as the RDO. Based on the said orders, revised patta also has been issued in favour of the 1st respondent. That being so, the present appeal is to be rejected.

11. Learned Special Government Pleader would oppose by stating that survey numbers are different. Therefore, a separate cause would arise for the appellants. Appellants have not explained how the revised patta issued in favour of the 1st respondent infringed their rights. Thus, the writ appeal is to be rejected. DISCUSSIONS:

12. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

13. Disputed facts between the parties are crystal clear. The appellants claim that they own a land to an extent of 76.5 cents and they possess documents. The first respondent claims that he owns 56 cents and he is holding documents. During re-survey, the revenue authorities found that the actual extent of land belonging to the first respondent was 44 cents. Thus, the 1st respondent filed an application and the said application was considered and a revised patta has been granted in favour of the 1st respondent to an extent of 56 cents as per the documents produced by him.

14. Per contra, the claim of the appellants that they own 76.5 cents was also considered by the authorities and the portion of the land was subdivided as Survey Number 126/4A and 126/4B and the said portion of the land claimed by the appellants were removed from their original patta and included along with the patta granted in favour of the first respondent. Therefore, the appellants claim that their 76.5 cents of lands were reduced to 68 cents and the 44 cents available with the first respondent was increased to 56 cents. This was done by the revenue authorities for which they have no power to do so.

15. Let us now consider the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983(hereinafter referred as "The Act"). Section 3(1) of the Act, states that, "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 authorized by him in this behalf. "

16. Therefore, the owner of the land may submit an application seeking issue of patta pass book. The authorities may verify the ownership of a person in respect of the land for which patta has been sought for. Owner has been defined under Section 2(6), where "owner means any person holding land in severally or jointly or in common under a Ryotwari settlement or in any way subject to the payment of revenue direct to the government and includes a full owner or limited owner but does not include a mortgagee, lessee or a tenant".

17. In exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act, Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Rules, 1987 was notified. Rule 4 deals with procedure on receipt of application or information. Sub-rule (4) to Rule 4 reads as under: “4. Procedure on receipt of application or information.

(4) 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 impringe 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.”

18. Sub- Rule (4) to Rule 4 in unambiguous terms stipulates that in the event of Tahsildar being satisfied that a dispute concerning ownership/title is either pending before the Court or issues are raised before him impinging the rights of the parties interested, then the parties are to be relegated to approach the competent civil Court of law.

19. Constitutional Courts time and again reiterated that civil rights relating to immovable property cannot be adjudicated either by the revenue authorities or by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

20. To reiterate the said principle, proviso clause to Section 14 of the Act contemplates that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta passbook under this Act, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for a declaration of his right under Chapter 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and the entry in the patta passbook shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.

21. Conjoint reading of Section 3, proviso clause to Section 14 and Rule 4 of the Patta Passbook Rules would reiterate that disputed issues of civil nature touching upon the ownership or title at no circumstances

be adjudicated either by the revenue authorities or by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such civil dispute touching upon the ownership or title in respect of private properties are to be adjudicated before the competent civil Court of law in a trial nature proceedings based on the documents and evidences available on record.

22. In the absence of any trial, High Court merely based on a sale deed or a patta earlier issued is not expected to form an opinion to declare the civil right of a person. This nature of declaration undoubtedly would result in miscarriage of justice or would cause prejudice to the interest of the parties or infringe the civil rights of either of the parties. This exactly is the reason why the Courts in unequivocal terms often reiterate that disputed issues cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings.

23. The power of High Court under Article 226 is to ensure the processes through which a decision has been taken by the competent authorities in consonance with the statutes and rules in force, but not the decision itself. Equally, the revenue authorities are conducting enquiry to verify the documents and in the event of dispute, the parties are to be relegated to approach Civil Court.

24. In the present case, no doubt the 1st respondent claims that he is the owner of a land measuring 56 cents and he possesses a document of the year 1967 along with a patta. So also the appellants claim that they are the owners of the land measuring 76.5 cents and possessing certain documents. Appellants have instituted a suit claiming 76.5 cents of land. Though the Learned Senior Counsel for the 1st Respondent would submit that claims set out by the appellants are stale and not supported by any documents, such issues are to be adjudicated in a trial nature proceedings by the Civil Court. Through summary proceedings, property rights cannot be ascertained nor be declared. That exactly is the reason why the revenue authorities as well as the Writ Courts are restrained from adjudicating such disputed issues touching upon the ownership or title, wherein the arms of the powers of judicial review cannot be expanded for adjudication of civil disputes, so as to declare the property right of any person.

CONCLUSIONS:

25. Considering the scope of the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and considering the fact that a disputed issue between the parties exist regarding the extent of the immovable property owned between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the DRO dated 18.11.2023 declining to pass final orders during the pendency of the civil suit O.S. No. 388 of 2023 is the right decision and deserves no interference. Only after disposal of the civil suit and on reaching finality, anyone of the party may approach the revenue authority for grant of patta, cancellation of patta or to mutate the revenue records, as the case may be.

26. Granting liberty to the parties to adjudicate the issues before the civil Court of law, the present writ appeal is to be considered. Accordingly, the writ order impugned dated 09.10.2024 in W.P.No.30348 of 2024 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To

1. The District Collector Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2. The District Revenue Officer Cuddalore.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Cuddalore.

4. The Tahsildar Kurinjipadi Tk., Cuddalore Dist.

5. The Secretary, Revenue Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J. GD WA No. 3149 of 2026 12-10-2026