1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.935 of 2011 P.Palanikumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai. 2.The Tahsildar, Melur, Madurai District. 3.P.Ponnupandi ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.36337/2010/G2, dated 14.01.2011 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to issue patta to the petitioner in respect of the property bearing S.No.80/5, extent 7 cents pathinettankudi village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Gopalan For 3rd Respondent : Mr.V.Perumal For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader. ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent District Revenue Officer, dated 14.01.2011. By the impugned order, the first respondent after notice to the petitioner and others held that under the UDR scheme when a wrong entry was made and patta was given to the petitioner. Hence to the extent of 0.03.0 ares in S.No.80/5 in the village, the name of third respondent should be entered. Challenging the order passed by the said District Revenue Officer, the present writ petition came to be filed. 2.When the matter came up on 25.01.2011, this Court ordered notice of motion. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted staying the impugned order. 3.It is seen from the records that the District Revenue Officer on an application made by the third respondent dated 03.12.2008 called for remarks from the Tahsildar, Melur when he received a representation on 22.04.2010. After examining the documents available, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 was working in the Keelavalavu co-operative society and has had owned several lands. But he had obtained a house site patta in 338/31 in the name of his mother. The patta was is entered under the UDR scheme wrongly. In view of the same, correction of the patta records was made by the revenue authorities. 4.It is the case of the petitioner that the order is illegal and there was no question of the 7 cents being registered in the name of the third respondent. But it is also shown from the records that the petitioner had filed a suit before the District Munsif Court, Melur against the District Revenue Officer who was cited as the 4th defendant and the second respondent Tahsildar as the third defendant. The third respondent is the first defendant in the suit. The suit is for the grant of permanent injunction against the private defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property and also not to evict transfer of patta which is standing in the name of the petitioner and his mother in favour of the contesting defendant. It was also stated that they have filed an interlocutory application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC being I.A.No.348 of 2010 wherein only notice was ordered. The Civil Court is yet to grant any interim order. 5.The contention raised in this writ petition was that when the suit was filed and notice was ordered to the official respondents who were made parties, it is not open to them to pass an order impugned in the writ petition. 6.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also contended that the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987, more particularly, Rule 4 has not been followed by the authorities and hence, the order should be set aside. 7.Aggrieved by the grant of interim order in this writ petition, the contesting respondent, third respondent has filed a vacate stay petition in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 together with a supporting counter affidavit, dated 30.07.2011. Objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It was also stated that the petitioner can always agitate his rights in the suit instituted by him. The further contention was that no opportunity was given to the petitioner was also denied. It is also stated that the Revenue Inspector had recorded the statements of parties and forwarded the same to the District Revenue Officer through the second respondent. It is only a case of correction of wrong entry which had crept in during the UDR survey. 8.In any event, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition for more than one reason. The suit filed is for a declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the same survey number. The further prayer was not to effect any name transfer which portion of the relief is completely covered by Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. The said section bars https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 civil suits for action taken in the discharge of duties of any officials under the said Act. Further, under Section 13 of the said Act, the District Revenue Officer is a revisional authority who is entitled to entertain any revision application either by the aggrieved parties. On his own motion, he can entertain any revision. It must also be noted that the proviso to Section 14 do not bar for any aggrieved party from entertaining a suit for a declaration of his title and also for various specific relief which right the petitioner had already exercised and is also pending under consideration by the District Munsif Court at Melur. In the interim application, only notice has been ordered. 9.Under the said circumstances, the petitioner having chosen his remedy (which is the only appropriate remedy) in respect of title or for possesesory right. If any orders passed by the Civil Court, it is needless to state that the authorities have no power to override these orders and grant of patta is not grant of title and is a symbolic identification made by the State for the purpose of collecting land revenue from those pattadars. The writ petition is misconceived and bereft of any legal reason. Hence, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai. 2.The Tahsildar, Melur, Madurai District +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.40825 +1cc to Mr.T.K.Gopalan, Advocate, Sr.No.40776 +1cc to Mr.V.Perumal, Advocate, Sr.No.40589 Writ Petition (MD)No.935 of 2011 21.11.2011 sms SMA/7.12.2011/6C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/