1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.7632 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Rajeswari : Petitioner vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Mdurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District. 4.S.Kathivelswamy 5.Suriyanarayanan : Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in Na.Ka.No.36064/11/G2 dated 15.6.2011 passed by the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Ms.Udhaya For Respondents-1to3 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader. For Respondents-4&5 : Mr.S.Balakarthik O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a notice issued by the District Revenue Officer, on a revision filed by the respondents 4 and 5, arising out of proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Patt Pass Book Act, 1997. 2. Heard Ms.Udhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.S.Balakarthik, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The petitioner obtained mutation in the revenue records in respect of the properties in question on the basis of certain Sale Deeds. Aggrieved by the grant of patta by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner, the fourth respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. By an order dated 15.6.2009, the Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal. 4. Thereafter, the fourth respondent filed a revision to the District Revenue Officer and the District Revenue Officer issued a notice of enquiry dated 15.6.2011. Contending that in view of the pendency of a civil suit for partition, the District Revenue Officer cannot conduct any proceedings under the Act, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 5. What is challenged in the writ petition is only a notice of enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner can raise all objections before the District Revenue Officer. The petitioner has, in fact, participated in the enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer and obtained a favourable order. Therefore, there is no reason for the petitioner to avoid an enquiry before the District Revenue Officer. Hence this writ petition is dismissed. The District Revenue Officer is directed to issue a fresh notice to both the parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that any of the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and District Revenue Officer will not have a bearing upon the civil suit for partition. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Mdurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District. +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No.39496 svn ssk/23.11.2011 /5c-2p/- WP.(MD)No.7632/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/