IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P. No.27186 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 M/s. SNP Ventures Private Limited Rep. by its General Manager C.P.Subash, S/o.Periyakaruppaiah Plot No.20, Door No.4, Shanthi Street, Dr.Seethapathy Nagar, Velachery Chennai-600 042. .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram Taluk Office, GST Road, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. 2. The Tahsildar, Alandur Taluk Office, Chennai 3. M/s.GWL Properties Limited No.36, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondents. Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent from holding enquiry and passing orders in the appeal dated 31.10.2007, preferred by the third respondent under reference Number Na.Ka.6505/2007/A/dated Nil pending disposal of the civil Suit in O.S.No.169 of 2008 on the file of the District Court at Chengalpet. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Selvaraj Sc for Mr.A. Thayaparan For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Vijayakumar Addl.Govt. Pleader For R3 : Mr.P.R.Thiyagu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus. In fact, prayer made is in the nature of prohibition, restraining the first respondent from holding enquiry and passing orders in the appeal dated 31.10.2007, preferred by the third respondent, under reference number Na.Ka.6505/2007/A dated Nil, pending the disposal of the civil suit No.O.S.No.169 of 2008. 2. It is not in dispute that order was passed by the second respondent under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass- Book Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Under Section 12 of the Act, appeal is provided to the aggrieved party, against order of the Tahsildar under the Act. The party has further remedy of filing revision under Section 13 of the Act. 3. Section 14 of the Act bars of suits against the Government or any officer of the Government with respect to any claim with regard to entry made in any patta pass-book, which is maintained under this Act, or to have any such entry omitted or amended. 4. Alternative remedy however is provided to the party, to dispute the question of title in the civil suit, and proviso to Section 14, makes it mandatory on the Revenue authorities under the Act to accept decision in the civil suit, finally passed. 5. M/s.GWL Properties Limited, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildar filed an appeal under Section 12 of the Act, before the first respondent, which is pending. 6. M/s.GWL Properties Limited approached this Court by filing W.P.No.17743 of 2009 without impleading the petitioner as party to the said writ petition. The writ petition was disposed off by this Court by directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal pending before it within a period of eight weeks. 7. The petitioner has now challenged the proceedings before the first respondent on the ground that remedy under Sections 12 and 14 is independent of each other, and once the third respondent has chosen to file civil suit, it is not open to him to prosecute appeal, under Section 12 of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that the proceedings before the first respondent are vitiated and are without jurisdiction, due to pendency of suit before the Civil Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent is interested in third respondent, as he has filed counter to the writ petition, whereas third respondent has chosen not to file any counter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on this score. 9. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the petitioner. The first respondent is bound to comply with the order passed by this Court, directing him to dispose off the appeal within a period of eight weeks. The first respondent is, under legal obligation, to file counter in pursuance to notice issued by this Court. The filing of counter by respondent No.1, therefore, does not lead to conclusion that the first respondent is interested in third respondent. 10. The filing of suit under Section 14 of the Act cannot be ground for stay of proceedings in the appeal, unless injunction is granted by the Civil Court, in pending proceedings. 11. The reading of proviso to Section 14 of the Act, shows that order passed by Civil Court will be binding on Tahsildar, the first respondent and also the revisional authority, i.e. the Government. Even otherwise, the petitioner is aggrieved with the proceedings before second respondent, the filing of writ is not the remedy. The petitioner's remedy is to approach Civil, or the appellate authority for necessary relief. The filing of suit does not give any right to the petitioner, to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, as the appellate authority under Section 12 can decide all the questions raised. Similarly, Civil Court can also pass appropriate orders, on the facts and circumstances of each case. 12. Finding no merit in the petition, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. ar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram Taluk Office, GST Road, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. 2. The Tahsildar, Alandur Taluk Office, Chennai 1 cc to Mr.P.G. Thiyagu, Advocate, Sr. 8451 1 cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 8113 1 cc to Mr.V. Selvaraj, Advocate, Sr. 8153 1 cc to Mr.A. Thayaparan, Advocate, Sr. 7963 W.P. No.27186 of 2010 BKY (CO) kk 15/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/