1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.2175 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Jeya Balakrishnan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai. 2.Raveendran ..Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in order No.Pa.Mu.6706/2010.A4, dated 20.01.2011 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For Respondent-1: Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Govt.Pleader For Respondent-2: Mrs.K.Geetha For Mr.K.Karunanidhi ORDER The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 20.01.2011, in and by which, he has ordered for cancellation of the entry in the patta directly, which is contrary to the provision contained under Section 10 of Patta Passbook Act. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer has been ordered for cancellation of the entry in the patta directly and under Section 10 of Patta Passbook Act, the competent authority is the Tahsildar and that without an application to the Tahsildar, directly the application has been allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who has no jurisdiction to pass order. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for the relief stated earlier. 3.The learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that this is an appealable order and even in the impugned order itself it is very clearly stated that an appeal lie to the District Revenue Officer. Therefore, the petitioner can very well approach the District Revenue Officer concerned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The second respondent, on notice, would contend that the petitioner as well as the second respondent are co-owners and already a civil Suit in O.S.No.10 of 2011 is pending, which is admittedly filed by the petitioner for injunction and they have never asked for a change in the patta. This is a house property and only the name was wrongly entered in the town survey and therefore, he filed an application before and the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the RDO having found that the petitioner's name has been wrongly entered and ordered for cancellation of the entry and as against the same, an appeal lies to the District Revenue Officer. Therefore, the writ petition at this stage is not maintainable. 5.Heard all the parties. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 6.The short point for consideration is whether the order passed by the authority has got any jurisdiction. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader and as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent that the order pertains to the change in the town survey register. It is further made clear that the authority competent is the RDO, who enquired into the matter and after giving necessary notice to the petitioner has passed the impugned order. Once the petitioner having participated in the enquiry and without objecting the jurisdiction, the petitioner, now, cannot question the jurisdiction. Therefore, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to avail the opportunity of appeal, which is provided under the law. Since there is an appeal remedy available to the petitioner, this writ petition is not maintainable. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal as against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer before the District Revenue Officer. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O.) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai. +1cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.7123 MPK akm/31.03.11 /2p-3c/ W.P.(MD).No.2175 of 2011 17.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/