He relies on the decision of this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer and others

W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025The Revenue Divisional Officer,Ramanathapuram,Ramanathapuram District.3.S.Boomidhasan ... RespondentsPRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 26.02.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.24448 of 2024 on the file of this Court.For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government PleaderFor Respondents: Mr.J.Barathan for R1 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)The State is in appeal as against the order dated 26.02.2025 of the writ Court. We have heard the submissions of Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel for R1.2. The subject matter of the litigation is the property at S.No.227/2, Soornakottai Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram 2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025District, admeasuring 2 acres and 53 cents (property / property in question / subject property).3. It is the case of the State that the order under appeal has not taken note of various relevant circumstances and has merely accepted the prayer for quash of proceedings dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Ramanathapuram District, based on a decree in O.S.No.312 of 1996 dated 06.01.2004.4. According to Mr.Maharajan, that decree does not vest any positive title upon R1. He also submits that the classification of the property is sarkar poromboke with the words iyer madam / ayyanar madam, mayanam in the remarks column.5. Mr.Maharajan would point out that no patta had been sought in respect of the subject property by the private respondent or by their family members till 30.08.2024, when a claim was made, based on a Will executed in 2018, and patta obtained. 6. He relies on the decision of this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar vs. The District Revenue Officer and others, (1995) 1 MLJ 426 to 3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025the effect that a writ Court ought not enter into the realm of decision making, qua title to property. He specifically draws our attention to the observation that even if the Revenue Authorities decide the question of title and grant patta, that will not affect the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, which will have to decide the question without reference to the decision of the Revenue Authorities. 7. Thus according to him, proceedings dated 03.10.2024 had decided the question having regard to all materials and the writ Court erred in setting aside those proceedings.8. Mr.J.Barathan, would, on the contrary, submit that the private respondent in O.S.312 of 1996 had been in possession of the property in question for more than five decades. He relies on the Judgment and decree dated 06.01.2004, which according to him, has the unequivocal result of vesting title to the subject property upon R1. 9. He also relies upon Judgment and decree in O.S.No.82 of 2000, dated 04.10.2010, which ultimately culminated in order dated 30.11.2016 in S.A.(MD)No.683 of 2016, in favour of R1. This litigation 4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025was declaratory in nature and sought resumption of possession of the subject property. It is in these circumstances that he would assert title of R1 to the subject property.10. As an alternate argument, he would draw attention to the fact that the proceedings of the impugned in writ petition (proceedings of the RDO dated 03.10.24) had not taken note of the voluminous submissions made on behalf of R1. Though the order notes that around 15 documents had been produced before the authority, there is no discussion in that regard. 11. The writ Court had passed the order under appeal relying on its own order in W.P.(MD)No.24100 of 2017. That writ petition had been filed by the vendors of R1 who had been in receipt of an eviction notice. They had challenged the eviction notice in that writ petition, which had come to be allowed by order dated 12.02.2025, referring to, and relying upon the Civil Court decrees cited before us. 12. That order dated 12.02.2025, in W.P.(MD)No.24100 of 2017 has attained finality, as the State had not chosen to file an appeal 5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025and the present litigation is hence hit by the principle of constructive res judicata. Having not challenged order dated 12.02.2025, the State cannot now challenge order dated 26.02.2025, as the latter is wholly dependent upon the earlier order. 13. He also relies upon the Judgments in Govindammal (dead) by legal representatives and others vs. Vaidiyanathan and others, (2019) 17 SCC 433 and Har Narayan Tewari (D) through legal representatives vs. Cantonment Board, Ramgargh Cantonment and others, (2024) 8 SCC 114 and draws our attention to several paragraphs therein.14. We have heard both learned counsel and have perused the material papers and the cases cited by them.15. O.S.No.312 of 1996 had been filed by Dharmalingam, Kasinathan and Paneer, villagers of Soornakottai Village and the suit property is at S.No.227/2, Soornakottai Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, the same as the property in question. The plaintiffs had claimed that the suit property is liable to be used as a mayanam or burial ground. The parties arrayed as defendants were the 6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025State and the predecessors of the vendor of R1. 16. The contentions of the State in the written statement have been set out in paragraph 3 of that Judgment as follows:-jhth nrhj;J ,uhkehjGuk; jhYfh #uq;Nfhl;il F&g; ma;ah;klk; fpuhkj;jpy; cs;sjhfTk;> jhth nrhj;jpy; tP];juzk; 1.02.5 ncwf;Nlu; ma;ah; klKk; kahdKk; vd fpuhkf; fzf;fpy; jhf;fyhf cs;sjhfTk;> ,J muRf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l Gwk;Nghf;F vd;Wk; thjp jhth nrhj;jpy; 1k; gpujpthjpf;F ve;jtpjkhd ghj;jpaKk; cupikAk; ,y;iy vd;W $WtJ ngha; vd;Wk;> ,uhkehjGuk; khtl;l cupikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; X.v];.35/85 vd;w tof;fpy; jhth nrhj;ij nghWj;J ngUkhs;gps;is tifawh Kj;Juhkypq;fk;;> Kj;Jf;$hp;> ehfypq;fk;; gps;is> kiyshXk> NtY Kdparhkp rgupkiy Mfpatu;fs; kPJ tof;F njhlu;e;J tof;F jPu;g;G Mfptpl;ljhfTk;> Nkw;gb tof;fpy; ,e;j ek;gh; 1k; gpujpthjp flrpf;fhuj;fshf ,y;yhjjhy; Nkw;gb X.v];.ek;gu; 35/85-f;F vd;w tof;F 1k; gpujpthjpia fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;Wk; ,uhkehjGuk; chpikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,.gp.37/95 kDNghl;L FbapUf;Fk; ,uhkypq;ff;Nfhdhu; tifawhit fhyp nra;Jtpl;l jhfTk;> jhth nrhj;ij 2 Kjy; 10 gpujpthjpfs; mile;Jtpl;ljhfTk; $wpapUg;gJ ngha; vd;Wk; Nkw;gb xg;gilg;G nghWj;J 1k; gpujpthjpfis ve;jtpjj;jpYk; fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;Wk; jhthr;nrhj;J 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025Mjpfhyk; Kjy; ,Jehs; tiu fpuhkf; fzf;Ffspd; mbg;gilapy; ma;au; klKk;. kahdKk; vd;W muR Gwk;Nghf;fhf jhf;fyhfp jhth nrhj;jpd; 1k; gFjpapy; mg;gFjpapd; kf;fspd; kahdkhf gad;gLj;jg;gl;L tUtjhfTk; ,jpy; muir jtpu ahUf;Fk; ve;jtpj ghj;jpaijAk; nfhz;lhl KbahJ vd;Wk;> vdNt gpuhij gpujpthjpfspd; nryTj; njhifAld; js;Sgb nra;a Ntz;Lk; vd;W $wg;gl;Ls;sJ.17. Thus, the categoric stand of the State even at that juncture was that the classification of the property in the revenue records was arasu poromboke - iyer madam, mayanam. The revenue records have been produced before us and support this contention. To reiterate, we find that the revenue records contain the classification of the subject land, as arasu poromboke (Government Land) with the words iyer madam, mayanam, (iyer madam, burial ground) in the remarks column. The UDR as on 24.08.1987 also supports the aforesaid classification. 18. The case of the private defendants in suit was that the property belonged to them. The suit came to be decreed on 06.01.2004, the Court denying the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff/villagers. The 8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025conclusion is in the following terms:-thjp jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l Mtzk; kw;Wk; rhl;rpaj;jpd; %yk; ru;Nt Gy vz;.227/2 Jhu tP];jPudKk; RLfhL ,y;iy vd;Wk; ru;Nt vz;.227/2 fPo;f;filrp gFjp kl;Lk; kw;Wk; ru;Nt vz;.227/.. Nru;e;j ,lk; jhd; RLfhL vd;W njupatUfpwJ. jhth nrhj;jpy; thjp jug;gpy; ,ilau;tyir fpuhkj;J kf;fs; mDgtpj;J te;jhh;fs; vd;gjw;F ve;jtpj rhl;rpaKk; ,y;iy vd;W njupatUfpwJ. vdNt thjp jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l Mtzq;fspy; %yKk; mtu; jug;gpy; mspf;fg;gl;l rhl;rpaj;jpd; %yKk; thjp jd;Dila tof;if epUgpf;f jtwptpl;lhu; vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;khdpf;fpwJ. gpujpthjp jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l Mtzq;fs; kw;Wk; rhl;rpaj;jpd; %yKk; jhth nrhj;J gpujpthjpf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l ,lk; vd;W ePUgpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W ,e;e;jpkd;wk; jPh;khdpj;J ,e;j vOtpdh vz;.1- f;F thjpf;F vjpuhf tpilaspf;fg;gLfpwJ.19. The last three lines of the aforesaid paragraphs are critical, as, while repelling the claim of the villagers / plaintiffs, the Court has merely observed that the subject property belongs to the defendants, who were both the State as well as private parties. Neither party may, in our 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025view, take unilateral benefit of this statement.20. The villagers have challenged the above decree before the Court and ultimately that appeal came to be dismissed as withdrawn. Neither the State nor the private respondents had chosen to obtain a clarification in regard to the Judgment of the Civil Court. It is also an admitted position that no patta had been obtained by the private parties. 21. While matter stood thus, it appears that the successors to private defendants in the suit received an enquiry notice in 2017 which they challenged in W.P.(MD)No.24100 of 2017. In the meantime, Murugesan, who had instituted the writ petition had passed away in 2018 and had executed a Will bequeathing the subject property to his sons. The legal heirs thus continued the writ petition that came to be allowed on 12.02.2025.22. Pending that writ petition, and on the basis of the Will executed by Murugesan, his sons had obtained patta for the subject property on 30.08.2024 provoking a whistle blower/third party to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking cancellation of their 10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025patta. These proceedings were ongoing at the time when order dated 12.02.2025 had been passed. Ultimately, the RDO, on the basis of the petition by the whistle blower, had cancelled the patta by order dated 03.10.2024. 23. Hence, as on 12.02.2025 when W.P.(MD)No.24100 of 2017 had come to be allowed, order dated 03.10.2024 by the RDO had already been passed, which order came to be challenged by G.Dhanasekaran, the subsequent purchaser in W.P.(MD)No.24448 of 2024. We hence are of the view that the principle of constructive res judicata would be inapplicable in this case as there was a material change in the factual position between the passing of the first and second orders of the writ Court. 24. We are also hence not impressed with the argument of R1 to the effect that the order dated 03.10.2024 ought not to have been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is an officer inferior in position to the District Revenue Officer, who had issued the enquiry notice.11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 202525. Proceedings dated 03.10.2024 are the culmination of an entirely different trajectory of events. Those proceedings are the result of a petition filed by a third party for cancellation of patta and were the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(MD)No.24448 of 2024, whereas the challenge in W.P.(MD)No.24100 of 2017 was to an enquiry notice. In fact, when the 2017 writ petition had been disposed in february 2025, the 2024 writ petition was pending and it would have been appropriate for the parties to have sought a consolidation of the same. This was however not done and hence this argument will not advance the case of R1 at this juncture.26. An alternate contention is taken before us to the effect that proceedings dated 03.10.2024 have not taken note of the voluminous documents that have been filed by the respondents. On this aspect, we concur. Though, prima facie, the conclusion of the Revenue Divisional Officer appears to be correct, it is incumbent on the Authority to have considered the documents filed by the respondents, examined the same and thereafter, come to a reasoned conclusion, one way or the other. 12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025However the conclusion is cryptic and there is no discussion in regard to the documents submitted. 27. However, one thing we wish to clarify is that Judgment dated 06.01.2004 cannot be interpreted by R1 as granting the private defendants in the suit any positive or declaratory relief. To this extent, we accept the submission of Mr.Maharajan that though the relief claimed in the suit by Dharmalingam, Kasinathan and Paneer, villagers of Soornakottai Village, had been denied, the conclusion in the suit is inconclusive as regards title to the subject property.28. In light of the discussion as above, we set aside order dated 03.10.2024, remanding the matter to the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram District, for enquiry denovo.29. Let the parties appear before the Authority on Monday, the 8th of December, 2025 at 12.00 noon with all records in their possession.30. Needless to say, if the Authority believes that this is a matter involving a decision on title, that must be undertaken by the Civil Court, he has full liberty to relegate the parties to the Civil Court, at his 13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025discretion.31. This writ appeal is disposed by way of remand, and in terms of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 28.11.2025 NCC:YesIndex :YesInternet:YesmbiToThe Revenue Divisional Officer,Ramanathapuram,Ramanathapuram District.14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.ANDC.KUMARAPPAN, J.mbiOrder made inW.A.(MD)No.2901 of 2025Dated:28.11.202515/15