Partly allowed

Smt. Subbulakshmi, v. the District Collector /

Madras HC12 Nov 2014WP/7993/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order cancelling a prior Revenue Collector's decision. Held, the impugned order was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice, and was set aside. It was remanded for fresh adjudication following notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.03.2012 set aside; matter remanded to First Respondent to issue notice and conduct fresh adjudication within eight weeks.

Smt. Subbulakshmi, Vs the District Collector / — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 12.11.2014

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

W.P.No.7993 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012

¶6

Subbulakshmi .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector / The District
Administrative Judge,
The Office of Collectorate,
Coimbmatore.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
The office of Collectorate,
Coimbatore.
3.The Commissioner,
Pollachi Municipality,
Pollachi.
4.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Pollachi.
5.N.Kannappan .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order vide Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3245/2011/3 dated 19.03.2012 passed by 1st respondent and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Nagaraja For Respondent : Mr.I.Roofus Abraham Govt. Advocate for RR1 to 4 : Mr.T.Venkatesh for R-5

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶12

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the property ad measuring 40 sq.m. in New T.S.No.42, Ward 'D', Block 12, at Thottiyakottampatti Village, Pollachi Taluk, Tiruppur District, absolutely belongs to her and since her title was seriously disputed, she has filed O.S.No.264 of 2003 on the file of Court of District Munsif, Pollachi, against the third and fifth respondents, praying for judgment and decree to declare that she is the absolute owner of the 'B' schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men or subordinates from in any way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'B' schedule property. But, she is not having the benefit of any interim order in the said suit.

¶13

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 31.08.2009 before the District Revenue Officer / Additional Administrative Magistrate, praying for correction of the said land in question and it was ordered on 29.10.2009 and aggrieved by the same, the fifth respondent herein has submitted a petition on 28.11.2011 before the first respondent, who, without ordering notice to the petitioner herein, vide the impugned order dated 19.03.2012, has set aside / cancelled the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, dated 29.10.2009 and aggrieved by the same, she has filed this writ petition.

¶14

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a perusal of the impugned order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the first respondent would disclose that before ordering the said petition and thereby setting aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer dated 29.10.2009, the petitioner was not at all put on notice and therefore, on the short ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶15

5.Per contra, Mr.I.RoofuS Abraham, learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents, has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent and would submit that the first respondent called for a report from the subordinate authorities and found out that the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, without any jurisdiction, has chosen to pass the order dated 29.10.2009 and therefore, rightly, the first respondent has set aside the order and in the absence of any infirmity, the order may not be interfered with.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

6.This Court, after carefully considering the rival submissions and perusal of the materials available on record in the form of typed set of documents, is of the view that the impugned order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, is liable to be set aside and to be remanded to the first respondent for the following reasons.

¶18

7.The writ petitioner is having the benefit of the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, and it was put to challenge by the fifth respondent by filing a petition dated 28.11.2011 before the first respondent. The first respondent, before entertaining and passing orders in the said petition, has not issued any notice to the writ petitioner. It is a trite law that in respect of any order visiting the concerned person with civil consequences, the said person should be put on notice and admittedly, the writ petitioner was not put on notice. Hence, on the sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶19

8.In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the first respondent is set aside and it is once again remanded to the first respondent for fresh adjudication. The first respondent is directed to issue notice to the writ petitioner as well as to the fifth respondent and thereafter, adjudicate the matter on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶21

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sra

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

¶24

1.The District Collector / The District Administrative Judge, The Office of Collectorate, Coimbmatore. 2.The District Revenue Officer, The office of Collectorate, Coimbatore. 3.The Commissioner, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi. 4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pollachi. + 1 cc toMr.S. Nagarajan, Advocate SR.53795 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.53997 W.P.No.7993 of 2012

¶25

BVR(CO) Eu 25.11.14

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Smt. Subbulakshmi, v. the District Collector /

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Subbulakshmi, v. the District Collector /

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.v.Matha Prasad Vs Renuka Devi

Mr.G.Vijayakumar, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Jimraj Milton, Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Ramasamy Gounder Vs K.S.Palanisamy(Deceased)

S.P.N.Krishnamurthy, Vs The Senior Regional Manager

V. Amavasai Vs the State of Tamilnadu