WP(MD)/19647/2023 of Sun Street Solar Private Limited Vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 November 2026

ORDER

W.M.P.(MD)No.16228 of 2023 is filed seeking for permission to file a single writ petition, is ordered accordingly.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 28.06.2023 in Ni.Mu.A3/3428/2022 and further forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from mutating patta or direct them to restore patta in the name of writ petitioners, as it was before the impugned order.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, on an application made by respondents 3 to 5 seeking mutation of patta, the patta issued by the 2nd respondent was cancelled by the 1st respondent, with a further direction to mutate the revenue records in favour of all the legal heirs based on the legal heir certificate and other registered documents. The 1st respondent had also restrained the parties from creating any encumbrances over the lands pending mutation of the revenue records.

5. He would contend that, even while passing the impugned order, the 1st respondent had taken note of the various documents executed in respect of the lands. Insptie of the existence of such title documents, based on which the patta had been transferred by the 2nd respondent, the same had been set aside by the 1st respondent.

6. He would further submit that, having noticed the dispute with regard to the title of the properties among various parties, it would have been appropriate for the 1st respondent to relegate the parties to civil proceedings before the competent Court for adjudication of their respective claims of title and thereafter proceed further.

7. He would further submit that originally, a settlement deed was executed by one Sankara Vadivammal, hereinafter referred to as the settlor, in favour of the 7th respondent, and the same was unilaterally cancelled by another registered document in the year 1970. He would submit that it is a well-established principle of law that a transfer of title by way of a document cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the executant of the document.

8. He would further submit that the 7th respondent had also executed various documents in favour of third parties, including the petitioners. The claim of respondents 3 to 5 was made only after a lapse of three decades, particularly after the 7th respondent had started dealing with the property. In that regard, he would submit that respondents 3 to 5 are also not entitled to make any claim over the property.

9. He would further submit that the conduct of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned order is in violation of the provisions of the Rules framed under the Patta Pass Book Act, which mandate that, whenever a dispute of title arises in patta proceedings, the authorities ought to relegate the parties to the competent Civil Court for resolution of their dispute, rather than adjudicating the matter themselves. In this regard, he would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Limited v. R.Perumalswamy and others reported in (2021) 11 SCC 98.

10. Hence, he prays that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent.

11. Countering the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that, even though the settlement deed was cancelled, the said cancellation has not been challenged by the settlee. In that regard, he would contend that the settlee is not entitled to further alienate the properties. He would further submit that the documents subsequently executed are fraudulent, sham and nominal documents, which do not confer any title, and hence, no title would vest on the petitioners on the strength of such documents.

12. Referring to the earlier civil proceedings between the parties, he would submit that the 7th respondent had not challenged the cancellation of the settlement deed under which the properties had devolved upon him and had, instead, challenged only the cancellation of the other settlement deeds, which was held to be invalid. In that regard, he would submit that the deed of cancellation is valid and that the subsequent alienations made by the 7th respondent, as the settlee, on the strength of the settlement deed, which was subsequently cancelled, are void documents and would not enure to the benefit of any of the purchasers, including the petitioner.

13. In that regard, he would submit that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer directing cancellation of the patta issued by the 2nd respondent and directing the authorities to undertake the exercise of granting patta afresh does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, he prays that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition.

14. The learned counsel representing the villagers would submit that the conduct of the 7th respondent in selling the property after executing a gift deed in favour of the Government for a public purpose would, by itself, demonstrate that the 7th respondent is attempting to unjustly enrich himself by dealing with the property over which he has no right. He would further submit that the order of the Revenue

Divisional Officer directing mutation of patta in favour of the Government, based on the registered gift deed executed by the 7th respondent, does not suffer from any legal infirmity, including arbitrariness. Therefore, he prays that, at least to that extent, the impugned order may be upheld.

15. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective parties and perused the materials available on record.

16. A primordial contention has been raised that the impugned order is in violation of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). For better appreciation, it would be appropriate to refer to the Rule 4, which reads as follows: “4. Procedure on receipt of application or information.

(1) On receipt of the application or information, the Tahsildar shall make an entry in the "Register of Applications Received" in the order of receipt in Form III. The Register shall be maintained village-wise.

(2) On the basis of the information furnished in the application and as available in the existing land records or obtained otherwise, the Tahsildar shall cause to be served or despatched, under certificate of posting, to the persons having interest on the land a notice in Form IV calling upon them to make representation either orally, or in writing at a specific place on a specified date which shall be not less

than fifteen days and forty days later than the date of receipt of the application or information.

(3) On the prescribed date, the Tahsildar shall conduct a summary enquiry. At the enquiry, on consideration of age, literacy and occupation, the Tahsildar may permit an authorised agent of the owner to appear on his behalf to supplement whatever the owner has to state orally or in writing. No legal practitioner in his professional capacity shall be allowed to represent any party at such an enquiry. There shall not be adjournment of the enquiry not more than twice and that adjournment shall be granted only on application made by the parties requesting for adjournment. Reasons for granting or refusing the adjournment shall be recorded by the Tahsildar in writing.

(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.”

17. The aforesaid Rule provides for the procedure to be followed by the authorities while conducting enquiries in respect of the entries to be made in the patta, including mutation by way of transfer. Sub- Rule (4), as extracted above, mandates that, if the authority is satisfied that a dispute relating to ownership is already pending before a Court or is raised before it, the authority shall direct the parties concerned to have their respective claims of title adjudicated by a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter and thereafter make appropriate changes in the revenue records.

18. The revenue authorities are not vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to title. It is further to be seen that the said Sub-Rule contemplates that all the parties to the proceedings must agree in writing with regard to the ownership of the property. In the event of rival claims of ownership, it is imperative upon the authority to relegate the parties to the competent Civil Court for adjudication of their respective claims.

19. The aforesaid provision has also been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, reported in (2021) 11 SCC 98.

20. In the present case, a thorough perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the 1st respondent had taken note of the rival claims of title to the properties based on the documents relied upon by the respective parties. When that be so, the 1st respondent ought to have refrained from entering into the merits of the dispute and ought not to have set aside the entries made in the revenue records/patta or directed mutation of the patta in favour of the

Government in respect of a portion of the land and further directed the 2nd respondent to undertake the exercise of granting patta based on the legal heir certificate and other documents relied upon by the authorities.

21. It is imperative that, upon noticing the dispute, the 1st respondent ought to have referred the parties to the competent Civil Court for adjudication of their respective claims of ownership over the properties.

22. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

23. Before parting with the case, the conscience of this Court is shocked by the manner in which the 1st respondent has violated the statutory Rules framed under the Patta Pass Book Act. The conduct of the officer who passed the impugned order is deprecated, as such violation of the statutory provisions would render him liable for disciplinary action under the applicable provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, particularly Rule 20. In that regard, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officer concerned for such violation.

24. Accordingly, this Court directs the Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009, to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the officer who passed the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 and to report compliance with the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 04-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Nsr Note: Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009, forthwith. To:

1. Revenue Divisional Officer Tirunelveli-627 009

2. Tahsildar Manoor Taluk, Tirunelveli District

3. Revenue Divisional Officer Tirunelveli-627 009

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer Tirunelveli - 627 009

K.KUMARESH BABU, J. Nsr WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023 04 -11-2026