AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ravichandra Baabu, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent dated 24.07.2006
and consequently, seeking for a direction to the respondents to conduct O.S. No. 63 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif at Aruppukottai,
without any reference to the said order and decided the issues on merits. The case of the petitioner is that an extent of 2.02 Acres at Survey No.
205/4, Aruppukottai village belonged to him. Out of the total extent of 2.02 Acres, an extent of 82 cents was acquired by the Government for
formation of a bye pass road and the balance extent of 1.20 Acre was reclassified as ward ''F'' Block 10, T.S. No. 5/4c1 and ward ''F'' Block 10,
T.S. No. 5/4c2. The said property is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner for more than 40 years and patta also stands in the name of the
petitioner under patta No. 949. When 82 cents of land was acquired, the first respondent herein paid compensation to the petitioner and therefore,
the title over the said property under Survey No. 205/4 measuring 1 Acre 20 cents is accepted by the first respondent and therefore he is
estopped from denying it. Likewise an extent of 86 cents at Survey No. 205/5 was also acquired for the formation of bye pass road from the
husband of the 5th respondent and the father of the respondents 6 to 9. The petitioner and the father of the respondents 6 to 9, namely, Late. T.R.
Subbaraj are brothers. His brother, namely, one late. T.R. Subbaraj never objected to the payment of compensation to the petitioner in respect of
Survey No. 205/4. It is further stated by the petitioner that the 4th respondent approached the petitioner for the lease of a portion of land at
Survey No. 205/4 and accordingly, a lease deed was executed on 02.08.1993. The said lease is for 15 years and the 4th respondent was running
a Petrol Bunk, as tenant of the petitioner. However, the 4th respondent got a sale deed executed in respect of the said property from the
respondents 6 to 8 as if they are the owners of the said property. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 63 of 2006 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai for declaration and mandatory injunction. However, the respondents 4, 6 to 8 approached the respondents 1
and 2 and sought for cancellation of patta as well as mutation of the records. The second respondent rightly refused to effect any mutation on the
ground that the civil suit is pending with regard to the title. On the other hand, the first respondent by way of the impugned order dated 24.07.2006
cancelled the patta which stood in the name of the petitioner and consequently, granted the patta in favour of the respondents 4, 6, 7 and 8 for
survey No. 205/4 measuring an extent of 1.20 Acre. Hence, the writ petition is filed by the petitioner. It is also stated by the petitioner that the 3rd
respondent has acted illegally and therefore, an enquiry has to be ordered against him to be conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Department, namely, the 10th respondent herein.
Notice of motion was ordered by this Court on 16.11.2006 and after notice, the respondents entered appearance. The first respondent was
arrayed in his personal capacity as 3rd respondent. The first respondent has not filed any counter. However, when this Court has directed the first
respondent to produce the file relating to this case, he filed an affidavit and stated that the file was destroyed in the year 2011, after obtaining the
approval of the Revenue Divisional Officer through his proceedings dated 13.06.2004 as it is the practice to destroy three years old files.
The third respondent filed a counter affidavit and stated that he had discharged his function and co-operated with the authorities and absolutely
there are no motives. In respect of survey Nos. 205/4 and 205/5 the petition was filed on 22.08.2005 and 06.03.2006 seeking transfer of patta.
After issuing notice and after considering the objection filed by the parties, the third respondent passed final order on 24.07.2006. It is also
contended by the third respondent that the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S. No. 63 of 2006 is in respect of an extend of 36 cents in survey No.
205/4c, whereas, the transfer of patta proceedings relates to total extent of 3.31 Acre Survey No. 205/4 and 5 and therefore, the petitioner cannot
claim that the civil suit covered the entire property. He has rendered more than 20 years of service without any adverse orders. Accordingly, the
third respondent is totally an unnecessary party to be impleaded in his individual capacity.
The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit and stated that an extent of 2 Acres and 2 cents at survey No. 205/4C belonged to late T.S.
Subbaraj, the father of respondents 5 to 9 and the petitioner never owned the said land at any point of time. The original patta stood in the name of
Late T.R. Subbaraj from 1958. The 4th respondent believed that the petitioner was the owner and consequently, entered into lease agreement on
02.08.1993 and after coming to know that the property does not belong to the petitioner, the 4th respondent purchased an extent of 59 cents from
the respondents 5 to 7 for valuable consideration on 21.06.2001. It is also contended by the 4th respondent that the Petitioner had already filed a
suit in O.S. No. 63 of 2006 for declaration and other relief, and the same is pending. It is further contended by the 4th respondent that the order of
the first respondent impugned in this writ petition has not been challenged by way of an appeal. Moreover, the said order passed by the first
respondent was only in pursuant to full fledged enquiry and after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned. The petitioner having appeared
before the first respondent cannot say that he was deprived of an opportunity before passing of the impugned order.
The respondents 5 to 9 filed a counter affidavit and contended that as against the order passed by the first respondent there is an appeal remedy
and without exhausting the same the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. It is further contended by the respondents 6 to 9 that the
petitioner never owned property in Survey Nos. 205/4, 205/5 and though the patta No. 949 stood in the name of the petitioner for quite some
time, the original patta stood only in the name of the father of the respondents 6 to 9, namely, T.R. Subbaraj way back in the year 1958. The
petitioner having invoked jurisdiction of civil court and filed a declaration suit, it is not open to the petitioner to maintain the above writ petition. It is
further contended by the respondents 5 to 9 that the first respondent had conducted a full-fledged enquiry and after analysing the documents filed
by both the parties had rightly passed the order thereby cancelling the patta in the name of the petitioner and granted patta in the name of the
respondents 4, 5 to 9.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the owner of survey No. 204 measuring an extent of 2 Acre 2
cents, out of which, 82 cents of land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for formation of the bye pass road and the first respondent
himself had given the compensation to the petitioner in respect of survey No. 204. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the title over the survey No. 204 in favour of the petitioner had been accepted by the first respondent and consequently, he is estopped from
denying the title of the petitioner and thereby cancelling the patta. The learned Counsel further argued that the first respondent has got no
jurisdiction to decide the title over the property, especially while dealing with patta proceedings. It is further contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the first respondent has got no jurisdiction to transfer the patta or cancel the patta and it is only the Tashildar, who is empowered
under the Patta Pass Book Act to do the same. The learned counsel further argued that as the order passed by the first respondent himself is
without jurisdiction, there is no question of filing any appeal under the Patta Pass Book Act against the order of first respondent. The learned
counsel also further argued that the 3rd respondent was arrayed in his individual capacity, who was the Revenue Divisional Officer at the time of
passing the present impugned order and he had acted with malice and passed the impugned order on the eve of his transfer. Therefore, an enquiry
has to be conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department against the 3rd respondent. The learned Counsel also prayed for exemplary
cost against the 3rd respondent. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:
Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others,
2011 (2) CWC 242 (Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., v. The District Collector and others).
3 Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta,
The Chairman, Railway Board and Others Vs. Mrs. Chandrima Das and Others,
2010 CIJ 245 (1) (Tamil Sakthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others)
Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent argued that the impugned order was made pursuant to
the direction issued by the District Collector, based on the representation made by the parties. The learned Special Government Pleader further
argued that the first respondent has got jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under the Patta Pass Book Act.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 9 argued that the order passed by the first respondent has to be treated only an order
passed in appeal because as against the order passed by the Tashildar an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, the first
respondent has got every jurisdiction to pass the order impugned in this writ petition. The power to cancel the patta lies with the Revenue
Divisional Officer and therefore, the order passed is presently valid. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision reported
in 2011 (2) CWC 242 in the matter of Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., v. The District Collector and others.
The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent argued that there are no averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition with
regard to any corruption or malice against the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel has also argued that the petitioner had not questioned the
jurisdiction of the first respondent, but, on the other hand, he filed objection before him and thereafter, only the impugned order came to be
passed. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner having filed objection before the first respondent is estopped from questioning
the jurisdiction. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent relied on the judgment reported in 2011 (2) CWC 242 in
the matter of C. Sabesan Chettiar (deceased) and Others Vs. The District Revenue Officer, The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Tahsildar and R.
Padmanabhan, in the matter of C. Sabesan Chettiar vs. The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District.
Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties.
In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order of the first respondent dated 24.07.2006. In the said order, the first respondent has
cancelled the patta standing in the name of the petitioner in respect of Survey No. 205/4 and consequently, transferred the patta in the name of the
respondents 4 to 9. While passing the said order, the first respondent has found that the petitioner has not produced any document of title in
support of his claim over the said property. In this case, admittedly, a patta was standing in the name of the petitioner under Patta No. 949 in
respect of survey No. 205/4. The said patta was cancelled by the first respondent by the impugned proceedings and consequently, the
respondents 4 to 9 were granted patta in respect of the said property. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the first
respondent has got no jurisdiction to pass the present impugned order. Therefore, the point for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether
the first respondent as the Revenue Divisional Officer has jurisdiction to cancel the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and consequently, to
grant the patta in favour of the respondents 4 to 9?
For proper appreciation of the power conferred on various authorities under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983, it is relevant to refer
Sections 10, 12 and 13 which are as follows:-
Modification of entries in the patta pass-hook.- (1) Where any person claims that any modification is required in respect of any entry in the
patta pass-book already issued u/s 3 either by reason of the death of any person or by reason of the transfer of interest in the land or by reason of
any other subsequent change in circumstances, he shall make an application to the Tahsildar for the modification of the relevant entries in the patta
pass-book.
(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the documents, if any,
relied on by the applicant as evidence in support of his claim.
(3) (a) Before passing an order on an application under sub-section (1), the Tahsildar shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and shall
also give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing. If the Tahsildar decides that any
modification should be made in respect of entries in the patta pass-book, he shall pass an order accordingly and shall make such consequential
changes in the patta pass-book, as appear to him to be necessary, for giving effect to his order.
(b) If the Tahsildar decides that there is no case for effecting any modification in the entries in the patta pass-book, he shall reject the application.
(c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall contain the reason for such order and shall be communicated to the parties concerned in such
manner as may be prescribed.
Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Tahsildar under this Act may, within such period as may be prescribed, appeal to
such authority as may be prescribed and the decision of such authority on such appeal shall subject to the provisions of section 13, be final.
Revision.- Any officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of District Revenue Officer authorised by the Government, by
notification in this behalf for such area as may be specified in the notification, may of his own motion or on the application of a party call for and
examine the records of any Tahsildar or appellant authority within his jurisdiction in respect of any proceeding under this Act and pass such orders
as he may think fit:
Provided that no such order prejudicial to any person shall be made unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making his
representation.
Likewise the relevant Rules under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987, namely, Rules 12, 14 and 15 are reproduced hereunder:-
Application for modification of entries in Patta Pass-Book.- (1) Application for modification of entries in the Patta Pass-Book u/s 10 of the
Act shall be in Form - VI and shall be made within ninety days from the date of acquisition of right:-
Provided that the Tahsildar may for just and sufficient reasons allow a further period of not exceeding ninety days for making an application for this
purpose.
(2) The application under sub-rule (1) shall be affixed with court fee labels of Rs. 3 towards fee for this purpose.
Appeal. - An appeal against any order of the Tahsildar passed under the Act shall be filed before the officer in charge of Revenue Division in
whose jurisdiction the property lies within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the order.
Revision on application.- (1) An application u/s 13 to the District Revenue Officer or such officer as may be authorised by the Government in
this behalf by Notification for revision of an order passed by the Tahsildar or the appellate authority shall be filed within ninety days from the date
of receipt of the order.
(2) The District Revenue Officer or such officer as may be authorised by the Government may admit an application for revision presented after
expiry of the period mentioned in sub-rule (1), if he is satisfied that the party had just and sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said
period.
From the reading of the above said provisions under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1993 and the Rules made there under, it could be
seen that the Tashildar is the competent authority u/s 10 for modifications of the relevant entries in the Patta Pass Book and such modifications are
also possible only under the following circumstances, namely, (i) by reason of the death of any person; or (ii) by reason of the transfer of interest in
the land; or (3) by reason of any other subsequent change in circumstances. Therefore, the Tashildar is empowered to make modification of entry
in the Patta Pass Book only under those three circumstances as referred above. Even for making such modification based on application filed by
the person, the Tashildar is bound to give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing.
Thereafter, the Tashildar shall pass an order accordingly, and also make such consequential changes in the Patta Pass Book as appears to be
necessary for giving effect to his order. If the Tashildar decides that there is no necessity for effecting any modification, he shall reject the
application seeking for modification.
Section 12 of the said Act contemplates an appeal against an order made by the Tashildar under the said Act. Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta
Pass Book Rules, 1997, states that the Revenue Divisional Officer is the appellate authority to hear the appeal to be preferred u/s 12. Section 13
contemplates further revision to the Revenue Divisional Officer either on the application of a party or in his own motion.
From the discussion of the above provisions relating to the powers conferred on the Revenue Authorities, it could be seen that the Revenue
Divisional Officer, namely, the first respondent herein can exercise the power only as an appellate authority u/s 12 that too as against an order
passed by the Tashildar either u/s 10 or any other provision under the said Act. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the first
respondent dated 24.07.2006, it is seen that the first respondent has not passed the order as an appellate authority by exercising his power u/s 12.
On the other hand, he has passed the order only as an original authority pursuant to a representation given before District Collector by the
respondents. It is needless to say that neither District Collector nor the respondents herein can confer the power on the first respondent, which is
otherwise not available to him under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. Though the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent has
argued that the order passed by the first respondent has to be treated only as an appellate order, a very reading of the order passed by the first
respondent would show that the same was not passed against any order passed by the Tashildar and on the other hand, the first respondent had
exercised the power as the original authority by taking the role of the Tashildar while such power was not conferred by statute. Therefore, it could
be seen that the power exercised by the first respondent in passing the impugned order is not conferred under the Act and consequently, the same
is the one passed without jurisdiction.
Even in respect of the power for cancellation of Patta is concerned, section 10 contemplates only modification of entries in the Patta Pass
Book Act under three circumstances as referred supra. In my considered view cancellation of Patta cannot be termed as modification of an entry.
That is why section 10 deals with only under three circumstances, namely, death of any person, transfer of interest in the land and any other
subsequent change in the circumstances. Section 10 does not contemplate any eventuality in respect of rival claim over the title to the property.
Section 14 of the said Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 takes care of such circumstances where the proviso to section 14 contemplates
filing a civil suit by any person if he is aggrieved against any entry made in the Patta Pass Book with regard to any right of which he is in possession.
Section 14 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:-
Bar of suits.- No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta
pass- book that is maintained under this Act or to have any such entry omitted or amended:
Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta pass-book under this Act, he
may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the patta pass-book shall be amended in accordance with any such
declaration.
In view of the proviso to section 14, if any person is aggrieved over the entry made in the patta pass book in respect of any property over
which he claims title and also possession, he can only file a suit for declaration of his right and thereafter, the entry in the patta pass book can be
amended in accordance with any such declaration made by the competent civil court. In this case, admittedly, the patta was standing in the name of
the petitioner under patta No. 949. The petitioner claims title over the property and equally, the respondents 4 to 9 also claim the same. If that is
the position, the proper course for the respondents 4 to 9 is to go before the competent civil court and file a civil suit for declaration. Without doing
so they cannot agitate the matter before the first respondent straight away seeking for cancellation of patta standing in the name of the petitioner
and consequently, seeking for grant of patta in their name. In any event, the petitioner herein has already filed a suit in O.S. No. 63 of 2006 before
the District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai and same is pending. It is also an admitted fact that all these respondents are party respondents in the
said suit. Therefore, in respect of the dispute over the title to the property, already a civil suit is filed before the competent civil court. Only when a
decree is granted, the Revenue Authority can act according to the decree and make necessary changes in the patta pass book. While that being the
position, the first respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order. It is needless to say that neither the first respondent nor any other
Revenue Authority has got any power or jurisdiction to confer the title of the properties on any person while considering an application for grant of
patta or for cancellation of patta. In this connection, it is useful to refer the decision of the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2011
(2) CWC 242 cited supra at paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 are as follows:-
The Patta Pass Book scheme was introduced in order to ensure that all pattadars of land get pass books, giving up to date details of their
holdings and that the patta pass book serves as an effective instrument for revenue administration. For obtaining such patta; an applicant has to
prima facie satisfy with the documents or any other information relating to the land to the Tahsildar for his determination and on such determination,
the Tahsildar not only makes necessary entries in respect of the land concerned in the Register of Patta Pass Book maintained in the office of the
Tahsildar, but also for the purpose of issuing patta pass book to the owner or the person concerned. The entries in the patta pass book shall be
presumed to be true and correct until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted.
The patta pass book relating to a particular land shall be produced before the registering authority as defined under sub-section (9) of Section
2 of the Act for the purpose of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange, settlement or otherwise. Unless the patta pass book is produced, the registering
authority shall refuse to register the land in terms of Section 5 of the Act. In the event a document is registered after the patta pass book is
produced and a certified extract of entries relating to such transfer is produced before the Tahsildar concerned in terms of sub-section (3) of
Section 5, the Tahsildar shall cause necessary changes to be carried out in the patta pass book already issued u/s 3 and issue a new patta pass
book after sub-division is necessary.
A reading of the above provisions show that an owner or person who has been issued with the patta, if transfers the land by way of sale, gift,
etc., and for that purpose registers the same before the registering authority, the person who is the beneficiary of that document can approach the
Tahsildar for necessary entries relating to transfer in the patta pass book. In order to find out as to the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar under sub-
section (3) of Section 5, we must read Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 That rule contemplates that the Tahsildar shall carry
out necessary changes in the Register of Patta Pass Books maintained by him within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the certified extracts or
the entries of transfers u/s 5(2) from the registering authority or a report u/s 7 after satisfying himself as to the correctness of the particulars
contained therein. Hence, the necessary changes would be only in respect of the registration of alienation or transfer in the patta pass book as
enumerated in section 5, which does not contemplate making necessary entries by cancelling the patta without there being any transfer of sale, gift,
mortgage etc., of the land in question by the parties in whose name the patta pass book stands registered. This provision does not empower the
Tahsildar to cancel the patta pass book granted in favour of person/persons on an application by any other third party.
The only provision available for modification of the entries in the patta pass book is Section 10, which reads as under:-
Modification of entries in the patta passbooks 1) Where any person claims that any modification is required in respect of any entry in the patta
pass-book already issued u/s 3 either by reason of the death of any person or by reason of the transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any
other subsequent change in circumstances, he shall make an application to the Tahsildar for the modification of the relevant entries in the patta
pass-book.
(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the documents, if any,
relied on by the applicant as evidence in support of his claim.
(3)(a) Before passing an order on an application under sub-section (1), the Tahsildar shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and shall
also give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing. If the Tahsildar decides that any
modification should be made in respect of entries in the patta pass-book, he shall pass an order accordingly and shall make such consequential
changes in the patta pass-book, as appear to him to be necessary, for giving effect to his order.
(b) If the Tahsildar decides that there is no case for effecting any modification in the entries in the patta pass-book, he shall reject the application.
(c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall contain the reasons for such order and shall be communicated to the parties concerned in such
manner as may be prescribed.
By that provision, in the event any modification is required on an application by any person, it can be made either by reason of the death of any
person or by reason of transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any subsequent change in the circumstances. This section also does not
empower the Tahsildar to cancel the patta already granted, as the power of the Tahsildar to modify the entries in the patta pass book is limited only
in case of death of the person who was holding the patta pass book or by reason of the transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any other
subsequent change in the circumstances. In the event an application is made that the patta pass book has been wrongly issued in favour of any
person and consequently claiming title over the land entitling such person to grant of patta, that person can only file a suit for declaration that the
entries made in the patta pass book should be cancelled and consequently for a mandatory injunction for grant of patta.
Likewise, another decision of the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court reported in C. Sabesan Chettiar (deceased) and Others Vs. The
District Revenue Officer, The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Tahsildar and R. Padmanabhan, at paragraphs 30 and 36 are as follows:-
From a reading of Rule 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, it is clear that if the Tahsildar is satisfied that a dispute concerning
ownership of patta is already pending in a Court or issues are raised before him which impinge on personal laws or laws of succession and all the
parties interested do not agree on the ownership in writing, he shall direct the concerned parties to obtain a ruling on ownership from a competent
Civil Court having jurisdiction before changing the entries already recorded and existing in the various Revenue Records. The Learned Single
Judge, in paragraph No. 19 of the order, had specifically held that in terms of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4, the First Respondent / District Revenue
Officer ought to have directed the parties to go before the competent Civil Forum for adjudication of dispute with regard to the ownership, as the
Fourth Respondent/Writ Petitioner and the Deceased Appellant / Fourth Respondent disputes the version projected by each one of them.
On a careful consideration of the factual position presented in the instant case and in the light of the qualitative and quantitative discussions
mentioned supra, we have no hesitation to hold that the dispute between the parties relates to title of the lands measuring an extent of 7.18 acres in
S.F. Nos. 547 and 548, Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District and the proper forum for the parties to agitate and ventilate their grievances in
respect of their title to the said property is only before the competent Civil Forum. As such, we come to an inevitable conclusion that the Learned
Single Judge had rightly held that it is open to the Fourth Respondent/Writ Petitioner and the Deceased Appellant/Fourth Respondent to work out
their remedies before the competent Civil Forum in accordance with law. We are also of the considered view that the dispute between the Fourth
Respondent/Writ Petitioner and the Deceased Appellant/Fourth Respondent is one of both mixed question of fact and law, which needs to be
gone into in detail by means of adducing oral and documentary evidence by examining witnesses as the case may be and the only course open to
the parties is to approach the competent Civil Court.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also referred to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Kiran Singh and
Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others, to substantiate his contention that if an order is passed without jurisdiction, it is nullity. The relevant
paragraph 6 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-
The answer to these contentions must depend on what the position in law is when a court entertains a suit or an appeal over which it has no
jurisdiction, and what the effect of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is on that position. It is a fundamental principle well established that a
decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or
relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or
whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be
cured even by consent of parties. If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles
governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was coram non judice, and that its judgment and decree would be
nullities. The question is what is the effect of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act on this position.
In view of the categorical pronouncements made by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court as cited supra, the impugned order passed by
the first respondent is unsustainable as the same was passed without jurisdiction and consequently, the same is set aside and the parties are
directed to get their dispute adjudicated upon by the competent civil Court. Once their title to property is decided and declared by the competent
Civil Court, thereafter, it is open to the parties to approach the competent authority under the Patta Pass Book Act for effecting necessary entries
in the patta as contemplated under the said Act.
Since I have decided the matter on the question of jurisdiction alone, I need not refer the other citation relied on by the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties. Insofar as the prayer made by the petitioner for ordering an enquiry against the 3rd respondent by the
Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department is concerned, there is absolutely no averments made against the 3rd respondent except by saying that
he has acted illegally and passed the impugned order on the eve of transfer. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though relied on the
decision reported in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, , The Chairman, Railway Board and Others Vs. Mrs. Chandrima Das and
Others, in support of his contention that the petitioner is entitled to get heavy compensation as against the act of the 3rd respondent by passing the
impugned order, in the absence of any specific and material averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit supported by any other documents to
substantiate that the 3rd respondent had acted with malice, the above decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are not
supporting his case for compensation. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioner has not made out any case for ordering such enquiry. At
any event that is not the prayer made in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.