IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.26213 of 2008 1. K.Chinnasamy 2. V.S.Maria Michael 3. S.Devadoss ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner and Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Coimbatore – 641 018. 3.The Tahsildar, Coimbatore North Taluk, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. 4.V.A.Nanjukutty Gounder 5.T.N.Mahendran ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of the writ calling for the records relating to the proceedings in D.Disc.K4/25620/07 dated 24.10.2008 on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the same in so far it related to the existence of a common path way is concerned and to pass such further orders. For Petitioners :Mr.S.Subbiah For Respondents :Ms.Lita Srinivasan, GA, for R1 to R3 Mr.R.Sivaraman, for R4 & R5 ORDER The present writ petition is filed by three writ petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seeking writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings in D.Disc.K4/25620/07 dated 24.10.2008 on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the same in so far it related to the existence of a common path way is concerned. 2. The petitioners claimed to be purchasers of the vacant land in Survey No.370/3 in Thudiyalur Village, Coimbatore North Taluk. The entire land covered by S.No.370/3 at an extent of 1 acre 63 cents belonging to the family of one Billa Gounder and subsequently, under the sale deed dated 6.1.1938, document No.13 of 1938, the same was sold by one Arthanari Asari to Nanjammal. In the year 1949, the said Nanjammal also sold the said property to her son V.V.Kalichamy Gounder by sale deed dated 25.11.1949. Again, the said V.V.Kalichamay Gounder by entering into a partition deed with his sons, allotted the entire 1 acre 63 cents to V.K.Anandan and the said V.K.Anandan also sold 50 cents in favour of one Chockalingam under the Document No.1734 of 1981, dated 17.6.1981. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner also purchased an extent of 6 cents from the said Chockalingam by sale deed dated 22.6.1995 and the 3rd petitioner also purchased another piece of land to an extent of 6 cents from the same Chockalingam under the sale deed dated 28.3.2002 and document No.1779 of 2002. Again, the 1st petitioner purchased 92 cents of land from the said V.K.Anandan and thereby, the petitioners are jointly interested in the above Survey No.370/3 and at no point of time, any passage was running through the entire Survey No.370/3. Whileso, the petitioners learnt that the revenue records came to be tampered with, during the process of updating the registers in the year 1989 and pattas came to be issued in the name of respondents 4 and 5, as if there was a common path way in existence. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore with a request to set aside the illegal sub division in Survey No.370/3, and similarly, another person by name, Murugesan also approached the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking the same redressal. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore submitted a report to the 2nd respondent, the District Revenue Officer, as the 2nd respondent is the competent authority to correct the Up Dating Registry in terms of G.O.Ms.No.385 Revenue dated 17.8.2004. On the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, after conducting an enquiry by giving a notice to all the parties concerned, the 1st respondent passed a proceedings dated 28.6.2007 and set aside the entire sub divisions made in Survey No.370/3 and also restored the position prior to the date of Up Dating Registry. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents 4 and 5 preferred a revision to the 1st respondent and after receiving the notice from the above said revision petition issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioners appeared in person and filed their objection to the revision petition filed by the respondents 4 and 5 and one Murugesan also filed his objection in the said revision petition. After thorough enquiry, the 1st respondent, the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, correctly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent to the extent that there had been some errors committed during the Up Dating Registry and yet thought it fit to retain the portion marked as a common passage. In respect of common passage allowed to remain by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Mr.S.Subbiah contended that when the order passed by the 2nd respondent was upheld by the 1st respondent in respect of other mistakes in the revenue records, without assigning any reason, wrongly confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent in respect of common path way. Therefore, the order passed in affirming the common path way is against the original revenue records and the same was sought to be set aside in the present writ petition. 4. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the 1st respondent having seen that there are mistakes committed during Updating Registry scheme by accepting the conclusion reached by the District Revenue Officer, upheld the order passed by the 2nd respondent, in so far as the discrepancies found in the sub division made during Updating Registry Scheme. But in respect of common path way, the District Revenue Officer has ordered to maintain the Registry prior to Updating Registry except for the common path way. The present impugned order has been passed by the 1st respondent, the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, after giving reasonable opportunities to the parties concerned to putforth their claims, as against the order passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent. The respondents 4 and 5 have already filed Civil Suit challenging the correctness of the very same impugned order challenged in the present writ petition and when the same has become subject matter of civil court, it was contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable and on that basis, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Further, refuting the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 urged the court to dismiss the writ petition as the same is not maintainable, since no writ will lie as against the order passed by the 1st respondent, as he has already filed a civil suit questioning the correctness of the impugned order as contemplated by under Section 13 and 14 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. In respect of his contention, he also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (1) CTC 338 rendered by me. Further, he has contended that when there is a dispute relating to the entries of the revenue records, the parties should get their rights adjudicated in a Civil Suit and no writ court by sitting under Article 226 of Constitution of India, can conduct any roving enquiry by looking into various disputed sale deeds taken place between various parties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. When there is a dispute relating to the entries in the revenue records, as it is well settled principle of law, entries in the revenue records do not create or extinguish the title nor has it any presumptive value vide G.Veerabadiran and another Vs. District Revenue Officer reported in 2010 (1) CTC 388. Such entries are only for the purpose of payment of land revenue and if anybody is aggrieved by the wrong entries recorded by the Revenue Authorities on account of various alleged alienation of lands or sub division of land, they should approach only Civil Court and adjudicate the matter in accordance with law, because ordinarily a Writ Petition should not be entertained against any order to rectify any entries in the revenue records, since such wrong entries do not affect the rights of any one. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5, after the order passed by the 2nd respondent, District Revenue Officer, the same order was challenged by way of revision before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent being the Revisional Authority, has also confirmed the order and thereafter, issued a gazette notification and after issuance of such notification, as an aggrieved party, the respondents 4 and 5 have rightly filed a Civil Suit as contemplated under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, by impleading the present writ petitioners as contesting defendants therein. Therefore, the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition as they have to approach the Civil Court as mentioned above. Further, this Court also, while dealing with a similar issue in a judgment reported in 2005 (4) CTC 9, has held that parties aggrieved by any wrong entries in the Revenue Records should get their rights adjudicated only in a Civil Suit, as ordinarily writ petitions should not be entertained as against any order for making entries in the revenue records. The Writ Courts do not have the facility of witness box to take evidence and cross examine the authenticity of the same, both oral and documentary evidence to be produced by the parties to the lis. Since the petitioners are seeking correction of entries in the revenue records, as I have already held in the above said judgment, the writ petition does not call for any interference in view of the pendency of the Civil Suit instituted by the respondents 4 and 5 by impleading the writ petitioners therein. In any event, in the matters of rectification of error in the revenue records, once gazette notification is issued under Section 13, by virtue of Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, no writ will lie. Therefore, the writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No Costs. Sd/ Asst Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst Registrar rkm To 1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner and Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Coimbatore – 641 018. 3.The Tahsildar, Coimbatore North Taluk, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. +1 CC to M/S. S.Subbiah Advocate Sr.No.14752 +1 CC to M/S. N.Damodaran Advocate Sr.No.14359 Pre-Delivery Order in W.P.No.26213/2008 (CO-SAI) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/