1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD).No.2654 of 2011 Y.Kokila .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 5.The Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipality, Ramanathapuram District. 6.C.Palanisamy 7.C.Kanthammal 8.V.Palanisamy 9.C.Samu 10.C.Vellaisamy 11.M.Sivasamy Nadar 12.Sivan 13.Rengammal 14.Makilambal 15.Nageswari 16.Kanimozhli .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to hear and dispose the revision petition filed by the petitioner, dated 02.11.2010 and consequently mutate the patta and revenue records in the name of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian for R1 to R5 Additional Government Pleader No appearance for R6 to R16 ORDER The petitioner contends that her father was holding a patta for the property bearing patta number 230, situated at Emneswaram Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. After the demise of her father, in the year 2004 she came to know that the name of patta holder for the said property was changed. Therefore, she immediately filed a suit in O.S.No.162 of 2004 for a relief of declaration and injunction on the ground that the patta was wrongly transferred. Subsequently, in the said suit a finding was given that merely holding a patta cannot be a ground seeking for declaration. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.81 of 2010 and the same is pending before the Sub Judge, Paramakudi, Ramanathapurm District. 2. The petitioner would also contend that the only document in her possession is the patta. Since the patta has been changed without intimation to her and without conducting an enquiry and without giving an opportunity, she could not prefer an appeal and therefore, she filed a revision under Section 4 of the Patta Pass Book Act, 1986 and the revisional authority has to consider her revision. Hence, she has filed a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to hear and dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner, dated 02.11.2010 and consequently mutate the patta and revenue records in the name of the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5. 4. The writ petition at this stage is not maintainable for the simple reason that even in the representation filed in page number 33 of the typed set of papers, the petitioner would categorically admit that the patta has been transferred without any notice way back in the year 1995. Therefore, she has filed a suit in O.S.No.162 of 2004 in the year 2004 alleging that she came to have the knowledge only in the year 2004. Subsequently, that suit was disposed of without any remedy to the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending consideration. At this stage, the requirement is that the revision authority has to consider her request either under suo motu or on the basis of the petition given by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks the authority concerned to revise the order. Firstly, he has come to this Court with a Mandamus without even a representation. Secondly, since the remedy is pending before the civil Court, at this juncture it is not permissible for the petitioner to file a simultaneous writ petition, even otherwise it is always open for the revisional authority that if there was any forgery or wrong committed, it is always open for them to take Suo motu action or on the basis of the petition filed by the petitioner. Merely because she filed an application for revision, she cannot seek a remedy on Mandamus without even any representation. It is not open for her at this point of time to file a writ petition for Mandamus without any representation and the remedy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 is always open to her in the civil court and as such, the writ petition at this stage is not maintainable and if the authority have found anything illegal, even suo motu action can be taken by the authority and that power is always vested with the authority. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 5.The Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipality, Ramanathapuram District. +1 CC to Mr. T.Lajpathi Roy, Advocate, SR.No.11657 +1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.11762 jikr Order made in Writ Petition (MD).No.2654 of 2011 07.03.2011 TR : 29.03.2011 : 3p/8c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/