1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD)Nos.2554 and 668 of 2011 K.Gandhi ... Petitioner in both W.Ps. Vs. 1.The Sub Registrar, Keeranur, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai. ...1st Respondent in W.P.No.2554/2011 2.The Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ...2nd Respondent in W.P.2554/11 and 3rd Respondent in WP.668/11 3.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. ... 1st and 2nd Respondents in W.P.668/11 5.P.Bakialakshmi ... 3rd Respondents in W.P.2554/11 and 4th Respondent in WP.668/11 PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.2554/2011: Petition 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 impugned order of the 1st respondent in Stay Petition No.10/2011, dated 22.02.2011 and quash the same and consequently forbear the 1st respondent from registering any document of sale etc., at the instance of the 3rd respondent in respect of the petitioner's property measuring 5 acres 80 cents of land in S.No.18/7-B situated in Mathur village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District. PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.668/2011: Petition 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 impugned order of the 3rd respondent, dated 14.01.2004 in ref.Ni.Mu.Tho.Mu.P.T.R. 1141/2003-2004 and quash the same and consequently direct respondents 1 to 3 herein to restore the patta and mutation of revenue records in the name of the petitioner in respect of property measuring 5 acres 80 cents of land S.No.18/7-B situated in Mathur village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu in both the petitions For Respondents 1-3 in : Mr.K.Balasubramanian, WP.668/11 & 1 & 2 in WP.2554/11 Additional Government Pleader. For 3rd Respondent in WP.2554/11 and 4th Respondent in WP.668/11 : No appearance COMMON ORDER The petitioner who claims to be the owner of the property would only contend that an exparte decree was passed as against him in a suit filed by one P.Bakialakshmi who is arrayed as the third and fourth respondent in both the writ petitions. The exparte decree was passed in the year 17.06.1998 itself. Subsequent to the exparte decree, the said P.Bakialakshmi transferred the patta in her name in the year 2004. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the exparte decree or the transfer of patta by the Tahsildar on 14.01.2004. Now only, he came to understand that the said P.Bakialakshmi is attempting to sell the property and hence, he has made a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 09.01.2011 and since the Revenue Divisional Officer has not taken any action so far, he has filed W.P.(MD)No.668 of 2011 to quash the order dated 14.01.2004 passed by the Tahsildar transferring the patta in name of the said P.Bakialakshmi. 2.Pending the said writ petition, the petitioner has also filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.2554 of 2011 as against the Sub Registrar stating that he should not register any sale deed in respect of the properties as the patta transfer has taken place in the year 2004 without notice to the petitioner. 3.Learned Additional Government Pleader has filed counter affidavit in W.P.(MD)No.668 of 2011 in which he has categorically stated that the transfer of patta was only done pursuant to the decree passed by the Civil Court wherein the the said P.Bakialakshmi was declared to be the owner of the property and therefore, there is no impediment in transferring the patta and if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved, he can very well prefer an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer who is the competent authority under law. Instead of filing any appeal, the petitioner straight away has filed the writ petition to quash the order of the Tahsildar dated 14.01.2004 which is not maintainable. 4.The petitioner filed additional typed set of papers along with exparte decree passed by the civil suit and also the objections filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.124/2011 which is the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the exparte decree and also the delay has not condoned. Since the civil court decree is binding on the parties, unless it is set aside, he cannot seek any relief from this Court especially when there is an appeal remedy is available before the Revenue Divisional Officer. 5.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6.The issue involved in the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.668 of 2011 is to quash the order of the Tahsildar, dated 14.01.2004 which is admittedly a transfer of patta in the name of the P.Bakialakshmi. It is further made clear that the patta transfer has taken place only pursuant to the exparte decree granted by a competent civil court as early as in the year 1998. Even though, it is an exparte decree, the authorities have acted in accordance with civil court order. If the petitioner is aggrieved against such transfer of patta, he ought to have filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer who is the competent authority under the provisions of Patta Pass Book Act. According to the petitioner, he has not preferred any appeal even after coming to know the transfer of patta in the year 2011, he submitted only a representation to the authorities and filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Tahsildar when there is admittedly an appeal provision is available. 7.Above all these things, he admitted that he has filed an application to set aside the exparte decree with an application to condone the delay in filing the said application in I.A.No.124 of 2011 and that application is pending. So long as the order of the Civil Court stands the authorities and the petitioner are bound by that order and unless and until it is taken up and disposed of. Hence, W.P.(MD)No.668 of 2011 is not maintainable at this stage. 8.The other writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.2554 of 2011 is filed seeking relief not to register the documents will not also arise as admittedly as per the civil Court decree, he is not owner of the property and therefore, this writ petition is also not maintainable. 9.Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The Sub Registrar, Keeranur, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai. 2.The Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 3.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. + 1 cc to Mr.R.Sundar, Advocate, SR No.12491 + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.12875 Writ Petition (MD)Nos.2554 and 668 of 2011 05.04.2011 sms/RJ/20.4.11 3p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/