This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 13.12.2012 of the learned III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore passed in I.A.No.24 of 2012 in O.S.No.335 of 2002 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
2. The petitioners are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants.
3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:
(a) permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from in any way disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties http://www.judis.nic.in 3 mentioned in Schedule A by the plaintiffs;
(b) permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from in ay way disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties mentioned in Schedule B by the plaintiffs;
(c) permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from in any way disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties mentioned in Schedule C by the plaintiffs;
(d) mandatory injunction restraining the defendants 3 and 4 from in any way changing the patta to any other name regarding A schedule properties;
(e) mandatory injunction restraining the defendants 3 and 4 from in any way changing the patta to any other name regarding B schedule properties;
(d) mandatory injunction restraining the defendants 3 and 4 from in any way changing the patta to any other name regarding C schedule properties;
4. Pending suit, the plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.24 of 2012 seeking to implead the proposed party/respondent No.5 to the suit alleging that originally S.F.Nos.127/1, 128/4, 5 stood in the name of http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Rangarao and 15 others, but all of a sudden names of Rangarao and 15 others have been deleted by the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore at the instance of the private respondents without making an enquiry during the pendency of the suit by illegal manner. Therefore, the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore is necessary party to the suit.
5. Resisting the petition, the first respondent filed elaborate counter stating that the suit properties absolutely belong to Palamalai Ranganathar temple of Naickanpalayam village and the revenue records with respect to the properties stood in the name of persons unconnected with the temple. As hereditary trustee of the temple, the second respondent applied to the District Collector, Coimbatore through Joint Commissioner of HR & CE, Coimbatore to delete names existed in the revenue records of the suit properties and substitute the name of the temple therein. The said application was forwarded by the District Collector to the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar in turn forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore. After full fledged enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order dated 31.01.2012, ordered his subordinate officials to delete the existing names and to substitute the name of the temple in the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 revenue records. As against the order dated 31.01.2012, the fifth petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore and the same was dismissed.
6. In the counter, it is stated that as against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer, the fifth petitioner filed W.P.No.13348 of 2004 and obtained an order of stay of the operation of orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer and the stay was made absolute in W.M.P.No.1529 of 2004. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed W.A.No.484 of 2005 and obtained stay granted in W.M.P.No.15629 of 2004. Subsequently, the writ petition itself was dismissed. It is also stated that despite orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer, the subordinate officials were not effected changes in the revenue records. Therefore, the second respondent filed petition before the Jamabandhi on 03.06.2011 for effecting changes in the revenue records of the suit properties. After enquiry, the Jamabandhi Officer, the then District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore directed the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Periyanaickanpalayam to effect changes in the revenue records relating to the suit properties as per the order of the Revenue http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Divisional Officer. Accordingly, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar effected changes in the revenue records relating to the suit properties in the name of the temple.
7. According to the first respondent, subsequently, by an order dated 27.07.2011, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, cancelled the previous order passed by him in concurrence with Jamabandhi Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer and carried out changes in the revenue records relating to the suit properties deleting the name of the temple. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed application before the District Revenue Officer and the District Revenue Officer, by an order dated 31.10.2011 set aside the order of the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and restored the order of the Jamabandi Officer. Consequently, changes have been effected in the revenue records relating to the suit properties as per the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 31.01.2002. Therefore, the District Revenue Officer was neither proper party nor necessary party and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have http://www.judis.nic.in 7 filed the Civil Revision Petition.
9. I heard Mr.S.Gunalan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. On behalf of the official respondents, nobody entered appearance.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court failed to note that revenue records in respect of lands in S.F.No.127/1, 128/4, 5 stood in the name of Rangarao and 15 others till 28.11.2011 and all of a sudden, the fifth respondent deleted names of Rangarao and 15 others without giving any summon or notice and also making enquiry. Since the 5th respondent is necessary party, the petitioners have filed petition seeking to implead the said official as 5th respondent in the suit.
11. Reiterating the findings of the trial Court, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that there was no bona fide in the petition filed by the petitioners seeking to implead the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore as 5th respondent in the suit. In fact, the District Revenue Officer is an appellate authority, who is no way connected with the suit proceedings and the trial Court was right http://www.judis.nic.in 8 in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners.
12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
13. The petitioners seeking to implead the District Revenue Officer as 5th defendant in the suit mainly on the ground that without enquiry and/or hearing the petitioners, the District Revenue Officer deleted names of Rangarao and 15 others in the revenue records in respect of the suit properties. Therefore, for proper adjudication, the District Revenue Officer needs to be impleaded as party 5th defendant in the suit.
14. Alleging that the suit properties absolutely belong to Palamalai Ranganathar temple of Naickanpalayam village and the revenue records in respect of the suit properties were stood in the name of unconnected persons, the 2nd defendant, who is the hereditary trustee of the temple applied the District Collector, Coimbatore through the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE to delete names existed in the revenue records of the suit properties. The District Collector, http://www.judis.nic.in 9 forwarded the application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore and an after enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order dated 31.01.2012 ordered his subordinate officials to delete the existing names and to substitute the name of the temple in the revenue records. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2012, the fifth petitioner viz., Mohanraj preferred appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore and the same was dismissed.
15. Thereafter, the fifth petitioner filed writ petition challenging the order of the District Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein stay was granted and subsequently, the same was made absolute. Against which, the first respondent filed writ appeal and subsequently, the writ petition itself was dismissed by this Court, however, liberty was given to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court.
16. It appears that since no changes were made in the revenue records, the second respondent had filed petition before the Jamabandi Officer on 03.06.2011 seeking to effect changes in the revenue records as per the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 31.01.2002. After enquiry, the Jamabandi Officer, the then http://www.judis.nic.in 10 District Revenue Officer directed the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Periyanaickanpalayam to effect changes in the revenue records qua the suit properties. Though the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar effected changes in the revenue record, subsequently, by his own order dated 27.07.2011 cancelled the previous order deleting the name of the temple. Aggrieved by the deletion of the name of the temple in the revenue records, the second respondent filed application before the District Revenue Officer seeking to set aside the order of the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and restore the order of the Jamabandi Officer. Consequently, changes have been made in the revenue records.
17. From the above narration, it is clear that in effect the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 31.10.2011 setting aside the order of the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and restored the order of the Jamabandi Officer is only an administrative in nature. Mere passing of such order, the Jamabandi Officer, viz., the District Revenue Officer is not necessary to implead in the suit. The District Revenue Officer is an appellate authority. Moreover, the Civil Court is in seizin of the issue. It is to be noted that during enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioners have appeared through their counsel and took several adjournments for submitting their objections. http://www.judis.nic.in 11
18. One thing needs to be pointed out that in the present suit, trial has begun and on the side of plaintiffs, five witnesses were examined and their side evidence was closed. The respondents have also filed proof affidavit and the suit is now pending for cross- examination of D.W.1.
19. It is also seen that earlier, the petitioners have filed petition after petition seeking to amend the prayer for declaration and also to examine the 3rd defendant as witnesses on the side of the petitioners. Both the aforesaid two petitions were dismissed by this Court. It is seen that the suit is of the year 2002 and the same has not been disposed of till date for one reason or other.
20. As rightly held by the trial Court, issuance of patta is being done by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer as per the Patta Pass Book Act and the proposed 5 th respondent i.e., the District Revenue Officer is an appellate authority and he is not issuing patta to parties. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the District Revenue Officer, they ought to have challenged the same before the Civil Court at the earlier point of time. Moreover, any order http://www.judis.nic.in 12 passed by the trial Court in the present suit, it will bind on the District Revenue Officer also. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Revenue Officer is not necessary party and thus, the order of the trial Court dismissing the petition warrants no interference.
21. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the parties are directed to co-operate the trial Court for disposal of the suit within the stipulated time.