1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:26.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition (MD)No.6130 of 2011 and M.P (MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 N.Ramakrishnan :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. 2.Chandra :Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.9330/2010-Aa-2 dated 11.2010 and quash the same as illegal, consequently to direct the first respondent consider the claim of the second respondent afresh after affording opportunity to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For R – 1 : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader For R – 2 : No appearance ORDER By consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2.The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the first respondent, dated November 2010 in and by which, the first respondent has made certain alterations in the revenue records by including the name of the second respondent and others in respect of the Survey Nos.399/1A2 and 399/1B2 at Mullai Nagar in Kotahmangalam Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, it has been admitted that the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.60 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif, Palani, for permanent injunction against the second respondent and the said suit is pending. The petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 has also adjudicated his right, title and interest over the said property. 4.From a perusal of the order passed by the first respondent, it appears that the said order was passed pursuant to a Decree, dated 22.11.2006 in O.S.No.79 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Palani. Therefore, it appears that the first respondent while implementing the Civil Court decree, has made certain alterations regarding the entries in the revenue records. As held by this Court in several decisions, the writ petition is not an appropriate remedy in a patta proceedings. The Patta Pass-book Act contemplates a remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent. Further, the settled legal position is that the revenue authorities should not decide on the title or right of a person over the property. A civil Court alone can give a decree insofar as title is concerned. 5.In the present case, the petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S.No.60 of 2011 in which the petitioner can adjudicate the right, title and interest over the said property. Therefore, on this ground the impugned order cannot be quashed. However, it is open to the petitioner to adjudicate his right over the property before the Civil Court in the manner known to law. 6.With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.24976. ps RP/09.08.2011/2P/3C. W.P.(MD)No.6130 of 2011 and M.P (MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 26.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/