Heard both sides.
2.The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order of the District Revenue Officer in Na.Ka.No.12895/2008 G2 dated 07.06.2008 on the ground that the District Revenue Officer has taken the proceedings on the basis of the complaint given by the 3rd respondent and the District Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the 3rd respondent.
3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that if the 3rd respondent wants to have changes in the patta by virtue of the sale deed executed in his favour, he has to apply for modification of the patta under Section 10 of the Patta Pass Book Act and without following that procedure, he cannot approach the District Revenue Officer under Section 13 of the Said Act.
4.Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, submitted that under Section 13 of the Patta Pass Book Act, the District Revenue Officer has got power to entertain any petition from any party and call for and examine the records of the Tahsildar, in respect of any proceedings under this Act and there is no illegality order passed by the District Revenue Officer.
5.In my opinion, under Section 13 of the Patta Pass Book Act, Revisional Power has conferred on the District Revenue Officer and it is also a supervisory power and he is exercising the supervisory power, when he takes any action on his own motion and he is exercising the Revisional power at the instance of any party, who is aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar or Appellate Authority.
6.Therefore, according to me, the District Revenue Officer has no power to entertain any petition from any party for changing the name in the patta, as specific provision has been made in that Act, under Section 10 for effecting change of name in the patta.
7.The District Revenue Officer as soon as he received any petition for changing of name in the patta, he ought to have directed the Tahsildar to initiate action as per Rule 10 of the Patta Pass Book Act. But without following that procedure, the District Revenue Officer has conducted enquiry on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar. It is seen from the records that the Tahsildar has given notice to the petitioner and asked the petitioner to appear before him, but she did not appear and even after, the notice was sent by the District Revenue Officer to the petitioner, she did not appear.
8.Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the District Revenue Officer should not have taken the petition for modification of changing the name in the patta under Section 13 of the Patta Pass Book Act, I set aside the order of the District Revenue Officer and directed the Tahsildar concerned to take up the petition of the petitioner after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and pass orders under Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
9.The District Revenue Officer is directed to transfer the file regarding the impugned order to the Tahsildar concerned immediately on receipt of a copy of this order. The Tahsildar concerned is also directed to conduct enquiry independently and come to the conclusion, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the District Revenue Officer in the impugned order.
10.With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
er
1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Collectorate Buildings, Madura 635 020.
2.The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk, Taluk Office, Melur, Madurai District.
3.The Special Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.