Judgment:
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 2 to 5 herein from interferring with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment over the subject land comprised in S.No.77/2A, situated in No.8, Keelkuppam Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District measuring to an extent of 1.42.5 hectares till the finalisation of the Revision Petition dated 03.06.2005 and consequently, direct the first respondent to take appropriate proceedings against the second respondent/Tahsildar, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District for the wilful disobedience of the orders passed in Ref.K4/20539/05 dated 13.06.2005 by the first respondent.
O R D E R
1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ of Mandamus praying for an issuance of an order by this Court in forbearing the respondents 2 to 5 from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the subject land comprised in S.No.77/2A, situated in No.8, Keelkuppam Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District measuring an extent of 1.42.5 hectares till the finalisation of the Revision Petition dated 03.06.2005. Also, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate proceedings against the second respondent/Tahsildar, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District for the wilful disobedience of the orders passed in Ref.K4/20539/05 dated 13.06.2005 by the first respondent.
2. The stand of the petitioner is that lands comprised in S.No.77/2A, situated in No.8, Keelkuppam Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District measuring an extent of 1.42.5 hectares of dry land belongs to his ancestors. His father Muruga Gounder was in possession, enjoyment and occupation of the subject land till his life time. His father expired on 16.11.1997. After his father's demise, he was in possession, enjoyment and occupation of the land and paying all the charges to the concerned authorities.
3. According to the petitioner without his knowledge and notice, patta bearing No.385 was transferred in the name of fourth respondent who is none other than his sister and the third respondent is her husband. After coming to know of the fact, he filed a petition dated 11.07.2003 with the second respondent and an order dated 15.07.2003 was passed issuing joint patta in his name and in the name of the fourth respondent.
4. The fourth respondent as against the order of the second respondent filed an Appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer Krishnagiri. The second respondent passed a detailed order on 20.01.2004 and issued a patta in his favour. Thereupon, the fourth respondent filed a Revision before the District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri and the District Revenue Officer by an order dated 05.04.2005 held that there are Civil Suits pending between the parties and till such time, the patta will stand in the name of fourth respondent and cancelled the orders of the second respondent/Tahsildar, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri.
5. The petitioner filed a Revision Petition dated 03.06.2005 before the first respondent/Special Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai passed the following order:
"2.The Revision Petitioner has also filed a petition seeking to stay the operation of the District Revenue Officer, till the disposal of Revision Petition, after a careful consideration of the facts of the case and representation made, and in the interest of justice, all orders passed by the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and District Revenue Officer are hereby stayed till the disposal of the Revision Petition. It is also ordered that no changes shall be carried out in Revenue Accounts pending final orders and possession to remain undisturbed as on ground".
6. The petitioner filed a petition before the first respondent/Special Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai and District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri on coming to know of the illegal acts of the second respondent requesting them to take appropriate action against the second respondent and prayed for implementation of the order dated 13.06.2005 passed by the first respondent in the Revision Petition. The petitioner has come out with a plea that on 24.08.2006, the third and fourth respondents and their men attacked his wife with deadly weapons and she escaped but sustained minor injuries and she was treated as an out-patient at Government Community Health Centre, Kaveripattinam. The third and fourth respondents interfered in his possession in the said lands. Also on 30.08.2006, the respondents 3 and 4 and their men removed the coconut trees by entering into the subject property by use of force and for which another complaint has been preferred with the fifth respondent.
7. Again on 31.08.2006, the third and fourth respondents have entered into the subject property and removed the coconut trees for which a complaint with the fifth respondent/Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri District has been lodged by the petitioner. But his complaints have not been considered. Therefore, a complaint has been lodged by him before the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District.
8. That apart, on 19.09.2006, the petitioner filed a representation before the District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri and the same has been forwarded to the second respondent with a direction to implement the orders of the first respondent dated 13.06.2005. But till date, the second respondent has not implemented the order of the first respondent and issued a fresh joint patta in violation of the order of the first respondent dated 13.06.2005.
9. The prayer in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner has in absolute possession and enjoyment of the subject land as per the findings of the Tahsildar, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District and District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri and upon such findings, the revisional authorities should be pleased to grant interim stay pending disposal of the Revision Petition etc.
10. It cannot be said that G.O.Ms.409 dated 02.07.2008 by the Secretary to Government speaks of withdrawal of the power of second revision vested with the Special Commissioner, Commissioner of Land Administration on transfer of Registry cases etc. In short, as per the said Government Order, the Government directed the Special Commissioner, Commissioner of Land Administration to the effect that all ongoing enquires may be carried on to the logical conclusion and orders issued and the Special Commissioner, Commissioner of Land Administration should ensure that in all cases where enquiries are not commenced, they are directed to return back the same, with the direction to approach Competent Court of Law.
11. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chenai in Letter No.K4/20539/05, dated 20.01.2009 addressed to the petitioner has stated that as per G.O.Ms.409, Revenue SS 1-2 dated 02.07.2006, the Government has withdrawn the provisions of second revision from Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration on Transfer of Registry cases under Revenue Standing Order 31-8 and further, directed him to approach the Competent Court of Law for remedy. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that in M.P.No.1 of 2007 (vacate stay petition) in M.P.No.1 of 2006 in the present writ petition, this Court on 04.06.2007 has vacated the interim injunction already granted by this Court and dismiss the interim injunction petition and allowed the vacate stay petition filed by the third and fourth respondents. Further, the third and fourth respondents have been given the liberty to approach the first respondent/Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk with a request to dispose of the Revision Petition at an early date.
12. It is to be pointed out that as per The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987, the aggrieved party is entitled to approach the Competent Civil Court in regard to the denial of title in respect of certain property as per Section 14 of The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1986 and seek appropriate declaratory relief. If any declaration is granted, then, it is needless to say that the patta passbook issued by the Competent Revenue Authority should be amended.
13. It is not in dispute that O.S.No.91 of 2005 has been filed by the writ petitioner on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District as plaintiff praying for a relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the subject land in the writ petition and the same is pending. Also, the writ 656+petitioner filed another W.P.No.26557 of 2008 before this Court praying for an issuance of a direction to the first respondent/Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai to pass orders on the Revision Petition filed by him in Ref.No.K4/ 20539/2005. Pending on his file. This Court on 14.11.2008 issued directions to the first respondent/Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration to consider the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and to take appropriate steps considering the G.O.Ms.409, Revenue SS 1-2 dated 02.07.2006.
14. Admittedly, the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chenai by an order on 20.01.2009 in Letter No.K4/20539/05 inter alia directing the petitioner to approach Competent Court of Law for remedy. When the suit filed by the writ petitioner in O.S.No.91 of 2005 is pending on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Pochampalli and the said proceedings the fourth respondent is arrayed as one of the defendants to the suit, till date the said suit has not been disposed of as informed to this Court by the Learned counsel for the fourth respondent. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the writ petitioner till the finalisation of revision petition dated 03.06.2005, an order injunction is to issued restraining the respondents 2 to 5 from interfering his possession and enjoyment of the subject land comprised in S.No.77/2A measuring an extent of 1.42.5 hectares, Keelkuppam Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District cannot be acceded to by this Court. In reality, the prayer has become an infructuous one, when the petitioner has been directed to approach the Competent Court of Law as remedy as per Letter No.K4/20539/ 05 dated 20.01.2009 of the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chenai. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails.
15. In view of the fact that the main relief of injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 5 from interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment in S.No.77/2A, situate in No.8, Keelkuppam Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District measuring an extent of 1.42.5 Hectares has been negatived by this Court. The prayer for issuance of direction by this Court to the 1st respondent to take appropriate proceedings against the 2nd respondent for wilful disobedience of the order passed in Ref.K4/ 20539/05 dated 13.06.2005 by the 1st respondent is not sustainable in the eye of law.
16. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.