Ramasubramaniam v. The District Collector

2025:MHC:2216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN and CMP No. 10381 of 2022 1.Ramasubramaniam

2. Ranjit Kumar Appellant(s) Vs 1.The District Collector Collectorate, Coimbatore District.

2.The Sub Collector, Pollachi.

3.The Deputy Tahsildar Pollachi Taluk, Now Anaimalai Taluk, Coimbatore District.

4.Uma Devi 5.Raja Rajeswari @ Raji Page No.1 of 8

Muruganandham 6.Shanthi Devi Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in WP.No.6370 of 2014 dated 14.03.2022 by allowing the present writ appeal.

For Appellant(s):

Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondent(s):

Mr.D.Ravichander, Spl.GP For R1 To R3

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The writ petitioners are the appellants before this Court. The writ proceedings were initiated challenging the proceedings of the Sub Collector, Pollachi dated 21.01.2014 keeping the patta proceedings in abeyance till such time the suit instituted between the parties is disposed of.

2. The appellant filed O.S.No.195 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Pollachi. Other two suits in O.S.No.435 of 2013 (renumbered as O.S.No.370 of 2019 and Page No.2 of 8

O.S.No.436 of 2013 (renumbered as O.S.No.371 of 2019) are also pending on the file of Sub Court, Pollachi for joint trial. During the pendency of the suits, an application filed by the private respondents 4 and 5 to grant patta was considered and granted. Therefore, the appellants filed an application seeking cancellation of patta. The said application, since not considered, the appellants preferred the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that during pendency of the very same suit, the Revenue Authorities granted patta in favour of the respondents 4 and 5. While so, they ought to have considered the application submitted by appellants for cancellation of patta. When the patta has been granted during the pendency of suit, application seeking cancellation is perverse. Therefore, the Writ Court ought to have considered the relief as such sought for in the writ petition.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 would oppose by stating that during the pendency of the civil Page No.3 of 8

suit, application for grant of patta or cancellation of patta cannot be entertained by the Revenue Authorities.

5. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 states that an application seeking patta is to be entertained only if a person could able to establish that he is the owner of the property. Section 14 proviso Clause reiterates that in the event of dispute, the parties are to be relegated to approach the Civil Court of Law.

6. Patta application seeking cancellation of patta are to be considered based on the provisions of the Patta Pass Book Act and Rules framed thereunder. If so, in the event of any dispute between the parties, the Revenue Authorities cannot entertain any application seeking grant of patta or to cancel the patta.

7. In the present case, the order dated 21.01.2014, which is impugned in the writ proceedings would show that the civil suits between the parties are Page No.4 of 8

pending. Therefore, the application filed by the appellants seeking cancellation of patta cannot be granted. Similar view would have been taken by the Revenue Authorities, while entertaining an application filed by the respondents 4 and 5 for grant of patta also.

8. That being the factum, this Court is of the considered view that all the revenue proceedings relating to patta are to be kept in abeyance till such time the parties establish their civil rights based on the documents and evidences in the civil suits pending before the Sub Court, Pollachi. After disposal of the suit and crystallization of civil rights between the parties, either of the party may submit an application seeking patta or cancellation of patta or to mutate the revenue records. In such circumstances, the authorities competent shall entertain the application and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. Page No.5 of 8

9. With these observations, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.) (C.SARAVANAN J.) 08-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Jeni Page No.6 of 8

To 1.The District Collector Collectorate, Coimbatore District.

2.The Sub Collector, Pollachi 3.The Deputy Tahsildar Pollachi Taluk, Now Anaimalai Taluk, Coimbatore District Page No.7 of 8

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.

AND C.SARAVANAN J.

Jeni 08-09-2025 Page No.8 of 8