Disputed apportionment of deposited amounts must be determined by the Civil Court, not writ jurisdiction.

The appellants, who were third parties to W.P.(MD) No.7365 of 2009, obtained leave to file the present writ appeal.

The original writ petition challenged the Tahsildar’s order dated 18.06.2009 and sought issuance of patta in favour of the writ petitioners for 2.75 acres in Survey Nos.367/1 and 376, Unjampatty Village, pursuant to the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order dated 24.10.2008.

Before the learned Single Judge, the parties recorded a compromise under which patta would be issued after collection of arrears payable to the Government under the Land Improvement Scheme, and the writ petitioners undertook to execute a sale deed for 1 acre and 37.5 cents in favour of the fourth respondent.

The amount payable was crystallised at Rs.2,50,000/-, which the learned Single Judge directed to be deposited before the Tahsildar.

The appellants contended that they also had shares in the deposited amount and that the original writ petition had been filed without impleading them.

The learned Single Judge quashed the Tahsildar’s order and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court regarding their claims.

1. Whether the appellants and other persons claiming an interest in the deposited amount were entitled to be impleaded and granted the benefit sought under Revenue Standing Order 45 through the writ appeal?

2. Whether the High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, could determine and apportion the respective shares of the parties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- deposited before the Tahsildar?

3. Whether the order of the learned Single Judge directing the parties to approach the Civil Court suffered from any legal infirmity?

The Court applied the principle that disputed questions concerning title, entitlement, and apportionment of money requiring examination of evidence must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court and not determined in writ proceedings.

Although the appeal was filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and the appellants relied on the benefit under Revenue Standing Order 45, the Court did not undertake any substantive interpretation of that Standing Order.

The Court further accepted that the writ court could not decide the respective shares of private parties in the crystallised amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and that the parties were required to seek appropriate relief before the Civil Court.

The Court held that the appellants’ claim was essentially a dispute regarding their respective shares in the amount deposited pursuant to the compromise and the order of the learned Single Judge.

Determining that claim would require the parties to establish their respective rights by adducing evidence, which could not appropriately be undertaken in the writ jurisdiction of either the learned Single Judge or the appellate Bench.

Since the learned Single Judge had already directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for such adjudication, and since the Court found no infirmity in that direction, the appellants were not entitled to modification of the order in the writ appeal.

The Court declined to include the appellants and the other claiming respondents as beneficiaries under Revenue Standing Order 45 in the writ proceedings and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court in accordance with law for determination and division of the deposited amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.