Patta Authority cannot negate his responsibilities


W.P.No.19342 of 2011
M.Periyasamy vs The Thasildar on 24 February, 2012
Dated: 24.02.2012

Facts in Brief: 
The petitioner is the lawful proprietor of a property and sold a portion of it. The buyer forged the document and sold the property which is not belonged to him to the respondents (2 to 9). The respondent obtained patta in his favor. Hence, petitioner sent the representation before the Tahsildar (1st Respondent) to consider his representation to cancel the patta. Since the 1st Respondent has not taken any steps to take actions, the present writ petition filed in the nature of mandamus. Ld. Counsel for Respondent no.1 submitted that the application u/s. 10 Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act not competent before the Tahsildar as he does not hold the jurisdiction to review his own order but the remedy available is only before the R.D.O by way of appeal.

Held: The remedy of appeal before R.D.O available only if the proceedings before the Tahsildar had taken place. Section 10  of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act awards an opportunity for the person who has not been heard when the patta has been granted. Such person can very well approach the Tahsildar to  modify or cancel the patta u/s. 10 of the Act.

The provisions of Section 10 are similar to Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the expartee decree.

Respondent no.1, therefore under statutory obligation, has to consider and decide the application, either to accept or reject it, but he cannot sit over it without proceeding further in the matter. The respondent no.1, thus, has failed to perform his duty, under Statute.

Writ Petition allowed. The respondent no. 1 directed to consider the representation not later then six months.
Read more

District Collector is not the Competent authority to cancel the patta

District Collector is not the Competent authority to cancel the patta

High Court of Madras

W.P. No. 22761 of 2011 

Lakshmiammal Vs The District Collector, Krishnagiri District & others 

 The petitioner holds the title of the properties by way of gift deed. The fourth respondent illegally obtained the UDR Patta and subsequently sold the land to others. Petitioner sent representation to the respondents to cancel the patta but of no avail. Hence invoked writ jurisdiction by mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the representation to cancel the patta. 

Held: The writ is misuse of court. The grant of patta governed by a statute i.e. Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. The Tahsildar is the competent authority under Rule 3 of the Act to issue patta or cancel it, in case, it is illegally granted. The remedy to the aggrieved party lies u/s. 10 of the said Act or in alternative an appeal can be filed before the R.D.O u/s. 14 of the Act. The remedy of the statutory authority is further subjected to revision. If aggrieved by the decision of authorities the parties can file a civil suit.

Hence, District Collector is not competent authority under the act to deal with issuance of patta or cancellation. No merit petition dismissed.
Read more