The Court allowed a writ petition against an order cancelling the petitioner's name as a joint pattadar without issuing prior notice. It quashed the revenue order and directed the Tahsildar to restore the petitioner's name in the patta.
Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to be re-entered as joint pattadar in Patta No.1420.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 17-04-2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
Writ Petition No.21166 of 2010
and M.P.No.2 of 2010
Thangadurai .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The District Collector,
Ariyalur.
2. The Revenue Divisional officer,
Ariyalur.
3. The Tahsildar,
Ariyalur.
4. R.Bhoopathy .. Respondents
Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent dated 20.05.2010 under proceeding No. Na.Ka.5/387/2010 and quash the same and direct the respondents to forthwith re-enter the name of the petitioner in Patta No.1420 and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Mukunth for M/s.Sarvabhuman Associates
For Respondents : Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai, AGP for R1 to R3 :No appearance for R4
This writ petition has been filed by Mr. Thangadurai, S/o. Muthu, challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent, in Na.Ka.5/387/2010, dated 20.05.2010, by which the second respondent, Revenue Divisional officer, Ariyalur, who is the appellate authority to grant of Patta, has simply passed the impugned order, cancelling the name of the petitioner as pattadars, without giving notice whatsoever.
party. Moreover, in the present case, adding fuel to fire, before passing the impugned order, the petitioner, who is the owner of the property covered in S.No.273/1A, has not been issued any notice for enquiry. Besides, the very same second respondent, on earlier occasion, has issued an order dated 16.9.1997, setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Ariyalur, the third respondent, holding that the Chinnapillaiammal did not establish the case for grant of separate patta, therefore, erroneously, the second respondent ought not to have passed the present order, as it is exposing self-contradictory stand.
W/o. Chelliah, Shanthi W/o. Gunasekaran and Thangathurai S/o. Muthu. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/Asst. Registrar.(Cs-III) dt. 20.5.14
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
aes/sra
To
Writ Petition No.21166 of 2010
and
M.P.No.2 of 2010
CVR(CO)
Eu 20.5.14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's patta without prior notice could be sustained?
Whether the Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus should issue to quash the order and direct restoration of the name in the patta?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Thangadurai
The District Collector, Ariyalur
The Revenue Divisional officer, Ariyalur
The Tahsildar, Ariyalur
R.Bhoopathy
T.Raja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
