IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.09.2010 Coram: THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P. No. 18036 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 G.R.Senthilkumar .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Tahsildar Chidambaram Cuddalore District. 2.S.Govindaraj 3.Thangasamy .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to conduct enquiry for cancellation of the patta issued in the name of the third respondent based upon the representation of the petitioner dated 14.06.2010. For Petitioner : Mr. G.RM.Palaniappan For Respondents : Mr. K.Balakrishnan for R1 Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. 2.On consent, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 3.The limited relief sought for in this writ petition for directing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry for cancellation of the patta issued in the name of the third respondent based upon the representation of the petitioner dated 14.06.2010. 4.According to the petitioner, the property in question originally belonged to his grandfather and after the demise of his grandfather, the same is allotted to his father in the family https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ partition and his father executed settlement deed in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has been since then in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner thereof. While so, the first respondent has issued patta in respect of the portion of the property measuring (1)Dry Survey No.37/1A2 -0.03.5 ares, (2) Dry Survey No.37/2A - 0.01.5 ares and (3) Dry Survey No.37/3A-0.01.5 ares, covered under the settlement deed in favour of the third respondent on the strength of the sale deed executed in his favour by the second respondent. The third respondent has also filed O.S.No.283 of 2009 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chidambaram, against the petitioner herein, for the relief of permanent injunction from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property in question. Even prior to the issuance of patta, the petitioner raised an objection before the Tahsildar not to effect to any mutation in the name of the third respondent, but in spite of them, the first respondent / Tahsildar has effected mutation of revenue records in the name of the third respondent and the same compelled the petitioner to give another representation to the first respondent on 14.06.2010 for the cancellation of patta issued in the name of the third respondent. On the failure of the first respondent to consider the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for the relief as stated supra. 5.The facts made available herein would reveal that the claim of the petitioner is not one for simple cancellation of patta in respect of land in question but it involves serious civil dispute in respect of right, title and interest of the property in question between the petitioner on one hand and the respondents 2 and 3 in other hand, resulting in civil suit filed by the third respondent against the petitioner for the relief of permanent injunction. 6.That being so, the remedy available to the petitioner is only to go before the appropriate Civil Court by establishing his right and title in respect of the property in question, in the presence of the respondents 2 and 3 or any other independent rival claimant and then to subject to the outcome of the civil suit, approach the revenue authority, for effecting any correction in the entries in the revenue records and mere direction to the first respondent / Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation for cancellation of patta is in my considered view not going to solve the issue in an effective manner. Even otherwise, since the order is passed despite the representation filed by the petitioner, the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the statutory appellate authority against the issuance of patta in favour of the third respondent in addition to availing his civil remedy, relating to the title dispute. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar kj To The Tahsildar Chidambaram Cuddalore District. + 1 cc to Mr.G.R.M. Palaniappan, Advocate, SR.71830 + 1 cc to Government Pleader SR.72131 W.P. No. 18036 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 VSN(CO) EU 28.10.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/