K.V. Sathyanarayanan v. The District Revenue Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 18-12-2008CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.P.No.20461 of 2008M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 20081.K.V.Sathyanarayanan2.Vimala Sathyanarayanan3.Poornima4.Srinivas... PetitionersVs.1.The District Revenue Officer,Thiruvallur District,Thiruvallur.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.3.The Tahsildar,Ambattur Taluk,Ambattur,Thiruvallur District.4.Gautham Raj Surana5.Dinesh Chand Surana6.Vijay Raj Surana7.Bhanwarlal Sharma... RespondentsPrayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ ofCertiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated18.7.2008 passed by the first respondent in his officeRef.Pa.Mu.39088/2007/AA3 and the order dated 9.11.2007 passed by thesecond respondent in her office Ref.Na.Ka.5882/2007/A1 and quash thesame. For Petitioners :Mr.G.Rajagopal,Senior Counselfor Mr.P.ManiFor Respondents 1 to 3:Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal,Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondents 4 to 6:Mr.N.JothiFor 7th Respondent:Mr.G.JermiahO R D E RBy consent of both sides the writ petition is taken up for finaldisposal.2.The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the orderpassed by the first respondent dated 18.7.2008 and the order of thesecond respondent dated 9.11.2007.3.The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6 as wellas the learned counsel for the 7th respondent raised a preliminaryobjection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition,which was answered by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitionersby submitting that the impugned order passed by the first respondentis contrary to the judgment made in A.S.No.36 of 2003 by the learnedPrincipal District Judge, Chengalpet, dated 29.4.2005, wherein afinding is given with regard to the petitioner's title to the suitproperty, which is the subject matter of the property, for which pattais claimed by the petitioner's as well as respondents 4 to 7.4.The learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7 on the otherhand submitted that the respondents 4 to 7 are not parties in the suitfiled in O.S.No.187 of 1999 on the file of Sub Court, Ponneri, thoughthe suit was filed after the purchase of the property by therespondents 4 to 7 and therefore the said judgment passed by theappellate Court is not binding on them.5.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits thatas against the denial of injunction in the appellate Court order, thepetitioners have preferred S.A.No.1120 of 2006, and the petitionershave now filed petition to implead the respondents 4 to 7 as partiesin the second appeal.6.The matter in issue is relating to the grant of patta. Thepetition filed by the petitioners for the grant of patta before theTahsildar was ordered on 4.6.2002. The respondents 4 to 7 filedappeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, and the appealwas allowed on 19.11.2007 in which status-quo was ordered to bemaintained till the second appeal is disposed of, against which thepetitioners filed revision before the District Revenue Officer, whichwas dismissed by order dated 18.7.2008 with a direction to filerevision before the Special Commissioner, Land Administration,Chepauk, Chennai-5. The said order is challenged in this writpetition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.The learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7 produced copyof the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.409 Revenue Department,dated 2.7.2008, wherein the Government withdrew the provision ofsecond revision vested with the Special Commissioner of LandAdministration, with a direction to refer all the pending untriedcases to the appropriate Civil Court. Thus, the provision of secondrevision to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of LandAdministration is not available now and the Civl Court is given thejurisdiction to go into the issue with regard to the validity of theorder passed by the District Revenue Officer.8.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as thelearned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7 raised several factualdisputes with regard to the purchase of lands made by the respondents4 to 7. Thus, it is admitted that the facts are in dispute especiallywith regard to the ownership of the property in question, for whichpatta is sought for.9.Who is the actual owner and who is in possession andenjoyment of the immovable property can be decided only before theCompetent Civil Court and the said factual aspects cannot be gone intoin writ proceedings.10.Whether the High Court is entitled to go into the disputedquestions of fact in a writ petition filed under Article 226 ofConstitution of India, is already decided by the Honourable SupremeCourt.(a)In (1976) 1 SCC 292 (Arya Vyasa Sabha and Others v. TheCommissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions &Endowments, Hyderabad and Others) the view taken by the High Courtthat disputed questions of fact are to be left open to be decidedbefore the Civil Court was upheld by the Supreme Court.(b)In the decision reported in (2003) 4 SCC 317 (RourkelaShramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another) it is heldthat the disputed questions of fact could not be entertained in thewrit proceedings. In paragraph 19, the Supreme Court held as follows:"19.The question as to whether the workmenconcerned had been continuously working for aperiod of ten years so as to enable them to derivebenefit of the judgment of this Court in R.K.Pandacase ((1994) 5 SCC 304) was essentially a questionof fact. ......"In paragraph 22, the Honourable Supreme Court further held asfollows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "22....... a disputed question of factnormally would not be entertained in a writproceeding. This aspect of the matter has alsobeen considered by a Constitution Bench of thisCourt in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v.National Union Waterfront Workers ((2001) 7 SCC1). ........."(c)In (2006) 9 SCC 256 (Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana andOthers), the Honourable Supreme Court held that 'the statement of theappellant or the 5th respondent was correct or not could notordinarily be tested in writ proceedings and it is well known that inwrit petition ordinarily such a disputed question of fact could notbe entertained'.(d)In yet another decision reported in (2007) 7 MLJ 687 (FoodCorporation of India v. Harmesh Chand), the Supreme Court held asfollows:"Since the facts were seriously disputedby the appellant and no factual finding couldbe recorded without consideration of evidenceadduced by the parties, it was not anappropriate case in which the High Court oughtto have exercised its writ jurisdiction. Theparties could have approached a civil court ofcompetent jurisdiction to adjudicate thematter."(e)Following the above referred decisions, I have dismissedW.P.No.23948 and 23949 of 2008 by order dated 24.10.2008 grantingliberty to the petitioners therein to approach the Civil Court, ifthey want to establish their alleged right over the property inquestion.(f)Apart from the above decisions, a Division Bench of thisCourt in the decision reported in (1995) 1 MLJ 426 (Kuppuswami Nainarv. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai and others) inparagraph 4 held as follows:"4.Now the question for consideration is,having regard to the fact that the DistrictRevenue Officer has expressed his opinion on thequestion of title whether the order under questionshould be interfered with. It may be pointed outhere that in a petition under Art.226 of theConstitution the question of title regardingimmovable property cannot properly be gone into,because a mass of evidence may be required for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ adjudicating the question of title. Even if weare to interfere with the order under appeal, itis the other party, who has to go to a civil courtand establish title. As far as the exercise ofjurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution isconcerned, it does not matter to it whether 'A'party goes to civil court or 'B' party.Therefore, we are of the view that the question oftitle has to be decided by the civil court,without reference to the order under question.Hence, we decline to interfere with the orderchallenged in the writ petition. However, we makeit clear that in the event a suit for declarationof title and for appropriate consequential reliefis filed, the civil court shall decide such asuit, without reference to the findings recordedby respondents 1 and 2 in the impugned orders, butonly on the basis of the pleadings of the partiesand evidence adduced by them before it. We alsomake it clear that any opinion expressed by thelearned single Judge, contrary to what we havestated above, shall also stand modifiedaccordingly. With these observations, the writappeal is dismissed......"(g)In AIR 2003 SC 2686 : (2003) 6 SCC 230 (Dwarka PrasadAgarwal v. B.D.Agarwal) the Honourable Supreme Court consideredsimilar issue and in paragraphs 28 and 39 (in SCC) held as follows:"28. A writ petition is filed in public lawremedy. The High Court while exercising a power ofjudicial review is concerned with illegality,irrationality and procedural impropriety of anorder passed by the State or a statutoryauthority. Remedy under Article 226 of theConstitution of India cannot be invoked forresolution of a private law dispute as contradistinguished from a dispute involving public lawcharacter. It is also well settled that a writremedy is not available for resolution of aproperty or a title dispute. Indisputably, a largenumber of private disputes between the parties andin particular the question as to whether any deedof transfer was effected in favour of M/s Writers& Publishers Pvt. Ltd. as also whether a partitionor a family settlement was arrived at or not, werepending adjudication before the civil courts ofcompetent jurisdiction. The reliefs sought for inthe writ petition primarily revolved around the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order of authentication of the declaration made byone of the respondents in terms of the provisionsof the said Act. The writ petition, in the factualmatrix involved in the matter, could have beenheld to be maintainable only for that purpose andno other.39. We may, however, hasten to add that as atpresent advised we do not intend to enter into thecontention of the petitioners that theirfundamental right under Article 19 of theConstitution of India had been infringed. ThisCourt would have entered into the question if thefacts were undisputed or admitted. The question asregards infringement of fundamental right and thattoo under Article 19 of the Constitution of Indiacannot be gone into when the facts are disputed.Whether Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and consequently thesubstituted petitioners are owners of thenewspapers and if so, to what extent beingdisputed, it cannot be said, that by reason of theimpugned order dated 3-9-1992 passed by the firstrespondent herein alone, the fundamental right ofthe petitioners under Article 19 had beeninfringed."11.In the light of the above decisions of the Supreme Court aswell as the judgments of this Court and having regard to theavailability of alternate remedy of filing Civil Suit as perG.O.Ms.NO.409 Revenue Department dated 2.7.2008, the petitioners arenot entitled to challenge the order by way of this writ petition andthey can only establish their right through the Civil Court by dulyimpleading all the parties, who are likely to be affected by virtue ofthe grant of patta.12.The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to thepetitioners to approach the civil Court to redress their grievance ifany. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarvr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.3.The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur, Thiruvallur District.+1cc to Mr.P.Mani, Advocate Sr 71059+2ccs to Mr.S.Jeremiah, Advocate Sr 71114+1cc to Govt. Pleader SR 71188KLT (CO)km/19.12. W.P.No.20461 of 2008