Allowed

K.Pandiyan v. the Commissioner of Revenue

Madras HC15 Dec 2016WP(MD)/6448/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking transfer of patta. The court set aside an impugned order that refused the request without hearing the petitioner. The matter was remitted to the revenue authority for fresh consideration after the petitioner files title documents within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed, impugned order set aside, matter remitted to third respondent for fresh consideration after filing of documents within two weeks.

K.Pandiyan Vs the Commissioner of Revenue — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:15.12.2016 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.6448 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶5

K.Pandiyan ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration(CRA), Ezhilagam,

¶8

Chennai – 9.

¶9

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶10

Revenue Divisional Office,

¶11

Madurai District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar,

O/o. The Tahsildhar,

Madurai North Taluk,

Madurai District.

4.The zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Koozhapandi,

¶17

Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in O.Mu.No.394/2015/B2, dated 09.01.2015 on the file of the Respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent no. 1 to 3 to grant patta for property in survey no.158/9 extent about 0.12.0 hectare situated in Pothumpu, I Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the third respondent, dated 09.01.2015, in refusing to transfer patta in the name of the petitioner from the erstwhile owners.

¶22

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to establish his claim for transfer of patta by producing documents of title in his favour. In other words, it is the contention of the petitioner that he has purchased the property only from the legal heirs of the erstwhile owners and he would satisfy the third respondent, if an opportunity is given to him.

¶25

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that if the petitioner is having material title deeds in respect of the property for which he is seeking transfer of patta, he can approach the third respondent, who in turn will consider his request for transfer of patta.

¶26

Considering the above said facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that the matter can be remitted back to the third respondent for fresh consideration as the impugned order appears to have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶27

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent for considering the claim of the petitioner afresh and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after perusal of documents to be filed by the petitioner. The petitioner shall file such documents before the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The third respondent shall pass the order as stated supra, within a period of six weeks thereafter. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/Deputy Registrar(J)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration(CRA), Ezhilagam, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai – 9.

¶33

¶34

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Madurai District.

¶35

3.The Tahsildar, O/o. The Tahsildhar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. 4.The zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Koozhapandi, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy,Advocate Sr.No.81140 +1cc to M/S THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.NO.81381

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.6448 of 2015 15.12.2016

¶38

pm rum/ck/04.01.2017/3p/7c

¶39

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

K.Pandiyan v. the Commissioner of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Pandiyan v. the Commissioner of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Rathika, Vs the District Collector

S.Sivalingam, Vs the Commissioner

S.Jeyakumar Vs the District Revenue Officer

A. Duraisamy Thevar, Vs the Secretary to Government

P.Madasamy, Vs the District Collector

Nagasundaram, Vs the District Registrar