@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. By consent of all the parties, the main writ petitions and the writ appeal themselves are taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 4820 of 2010 has submitted that the matter has become infructuous and therefore, the same may be dismissed. She has also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the said submission and endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 4820 of 2010 is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010 is also dismissed.
3. The writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 9035 of 2010 has been filed challenging the proceedings of the third and fourth Respondents viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram dated 28.06.2010, by which the third Respondent, while setting aside the earlier order passed by the Revenue Inspector, Mandapam dated 26.07.1990, has directed that the pattas should be restricted only in the name of Respondents 6 to 10. A reference to the said order shows that the same is relating to an extent of land measuring 46 acres comprised in Patta Nos. 246, 247, 281, 282, 423 and 529 at Enmanamkondan Village, Ramanathapuram District. The claim of the Petitioner based on transfer of patta issued by the Revenue Inspector, Mandapam dated 26.07.1990 jointly in his name and Respondents 6 to 10 came to be rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the ground that the order dated 26.07.1990 has been obtained not in the manner known to law. It is also stated that criminal proceedings have been initiated in respect of the officials concerned that the said order has been obtained on forgery and fraud. In the meantime, the Petitioner has moved the Civil Court by filing O.S. Nos. 40 and 43 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram for Declaration and Injunction against Respondents 6 to 10 and the said suits are pending Trial. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the third Respondent has passed the impugned order, arriving at the conclusion about the nature of the original order passed by the Revenue Inspector dated 26.07.1990 especially under the Patta Passbook Act, holding that the Revenue Inspector has no authority to pass such an order.
4. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the third Respondent. We are of considered view that since the Petitioner has already approached the Civil Court in respect of right, title and interest of the parties concerned, it is for the parties to work out their remedy in the manner known to law before the Civil Court. Without expressing any opinion either about the validity or otherwise of the impugned order or the criminal proceedings or civil proceedings stated to have been initiated against the officials, we dispose of the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 9035 of 2010 with a direction to the learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram to dispose of the suits in O.S. Nos. 40 and 43 of 2010 independently on merits and in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunities to all the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, without being uninfluenced either by the impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer or by this order. It is made clear that after the disposal of the suits, it is for the parties to work out their remedy in respect of issuance of patta. It is also made clear that after disposal of the suits depending upon the outcome, the Revenue Officials shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, there will be no order as to costs.
5. The Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD) No. 156 of 2010 is directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.02.2010 passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.7627 and 13018 of 2009, by which the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned order of the fourth Respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram dated 02.12.2009 only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
6. The issue relates to patta No. 877 in respect of 10.2 acres of land situated at Enmanamkondan Village, Ramanathapuram District in S. No. 37/2H/1. It is seen that in respect of the said property, originally, the Deputy Tahsildar has issued patta in the name of the Respondents on 24.12.2002 and that order came to be challenged by the present Appellant before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who passed the impugned order on 02.12.2009 setting aside the said patta issued by the Deputy Tahsildar that he has no jurisdiction to issue patta as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and also on the ground that the transfer of patta has been effected based on a Power of Attorney which was found to be a forged document and that order came to be challenged before this Court in the writ petition.
7. It is admitted fact that while setting aside the order of the Deputy Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer has not given a notice to the Respondents. Hence, the writ petition came to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of Revenue Divisional Officer with a direction to the Respondents and the private Respondents to await for orders from the Civil Forum wherein the suits are pending. It is relevant to point out at this stage that even before the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order, the Appellant has filed suits in O.S. Nos. 29 and 81 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram for Injunction and Declaration in respect of the same properties.
8. In our considered opinion, in those circumstances, the learned Single Judge has correctly found that instead of directing the parties to be given notice once again, enabling the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass fresh order, directed the parties to wait for the decision of the Civil suits in respect of right, title and interest. We do not see any reason to interfere with the said order of the learned Single Judge.
9. Therefore, this Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram shall dispose of the suits in O.S. Nos. 29 and 81 of 2003 independently on merits and in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunities to all the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, without being uninfluenced either by the order passed by the learned Single Judge or by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is also made clear that after the disposal of the suits, depending upon the outcome, it is for the parties to work out their remedy in respect of issuance of patta. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are closed.
