Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputed title or succession by cancelling existing patta; civil court determination is required.

Patta for the subject property was issued in the name of the appellant’s husband, A. Ranganathan, on 19 November 1986.

The fourth respondent, Ranganathan’s sister, later submitted a representation seeking cancellation of that patta and restoration of the patta in the name of their father, Anjooran.

Acting on the representation, the District Revenue Officer cancelled Ranganathan’s patta by order dated 12 July 2024.

The appellant challenged that order in W.P. No. 26289 of 2024, but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing that she had not established exclusive title to the property.

The appellant thereafter filed the present writ appeal.

The fourth respondent claimed an interest in the property as Ranganathan’s sister, thereby raising a dispute involving succession and title.

Whether the revenue authorities could cancel a patta issued in favour of the appellant’s husband in 1986 and restore the patta in the name of the original pattadar solely on the basis of a representation raising a disputed claim of title and succession.

Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had not established her husband’s absolute title through the patta.

The Court relied principally on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Limited v. R. Perumalswamy & Others, Civil Appeal No. 1318 of 2017, decided on 6 February 2020.

The applicable principle is that where a dispute concerning ownership of patta is pending, or where the issues raised involve personal law or succession and the interested parties do not agree in writing regarding ownership, the revenue authority must direct the parties to obtain an adjudication from a competent civil court before altering existing revenue entries.

Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title by examining oral and documentary evidence; such questions, including limitation and succession, fall within the jurisdiction of the civil court.

The Court held that the patta had stood in Ranganathan’s name since 1986 and that the fourth respondent’s claim, made after more than 35 years, involved a substantive dispute regarding ownership, succession and the respective rights of the brother and sister.

The revenue authority nevertheless cancelled the existing patta and restored the entry in Anjooran’s name solely on the basis of the fourth respondent’s representation.

Applying Edelweiss Asset Construction Company, the Court found that the authority should not have undertaken an adjudication of title or succession in summary revenue proceedings.

The existence of a mortgage deed and other competing claims further demonstrated that oral and documentary evidence would be necessary, and that issues such as limitation could arise.

These matters could be determined only by a competent civil court, not by the revenue authorities.

It quashed both the District Revenue Officer’s order dated 12 July 2024 cancelling Ranganathan’s patta and the learned Single Judge’s order dated 11 September 2024 dismissing the writ petition.

The fourth respondent was granted liberty to approach the competent civil court if she wished to claim title over the property.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.