The High Court quashed an order granting patta without notice to the petitioner who had bought the land. The Court directed the Tahsildar to re-adjudicate after issuing necessary notices and maintaining status quo.
Impugned order set aside; respondent directed to issue notice, afford opportunity, and decide matter on merits; status quo maintained.
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.
W.P(MD)No.5886 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.11.2019 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD)No.5886 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011
M/s.Kodai Valley Orchards Private Limited, Registered Office at No.34, Thirumalai Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017, Site at Kannuvarankottai, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, R.Rangarajan.
... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Tahsildar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.
2.Chandran
3.Ramuthai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in connection with the impugned order of the first respondent vide proceedings Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.32676/10/A4 dated 28.01.2011 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balaji For R – 1 : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, Additional Government Pleader. For R – 2 : Mr.R.Gandhiraj For R – 3 : No appearance
ORDER
Mr.V.Balaji, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of first respondent (official respondent) and Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned counsel on behalf of second respondent (private respondent) are before this Court.
1/4
W.P(MD)No.5886 of 2011
2.To be noted, third respondent remains unserved, but from the case file and from the submissions made before this Court, it comes to light that this Writ Petition can be disposed of by passing an order, which is not adverse to the rights of third respondent. Therefore, with consent of all the aforesaid counsel, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of.
3.Subject matter of instant Writ Petition is 'an order dated 28.01.2011 bearing Reference Na.Ka.No.32676/10/A4 passed by the first respondent' (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience). Impugned order pertains to 'lands comprised in Survey Nos.621/1 and 605/1 in Kunnuvarankottai Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District' (hereinafter referred to as 'said lands' for brevity). Impugned order, admittedly, deals with grant of patta ie., grant of joint patta in the name of certain individuals and separate patta in another individual's name.
4.What is of relevance is, there has been transfer of said lands in favour of writ petitioner vide registered sale deed which has been noticed in the impugned order. The relevant portion of impugned order reads as follows:
5.Notwithstanding the transfer / alienation in favour of writ petitioner being noticed, impugned order has been passed without putting writ petitioner on notice much less without giving reasonable opportunity to writ petitioner.
6.No elucidation is required to say that there cannot be transfer of patta without notice in the the aforesaid manner. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside on the short point that it has been passed without notice to writ petitioner, without expressing any opinion or view on the merits of the matter.
7.If the impugned order is set aside and sent back to the first respondent, the issue qua said lands stand rescinded to its earlier position. In this regard, learned counsel for writ petitioner as well as learned counsel for second respondent submits that they will maintain status quo till the first respondent decides the matter after putting them on notice, giving them reasonable opportunity. In this regard putting them on notice and giving reasonable opportunity will include third respondent also. To be noted, this is safetyvalue measure qua third respondent who remains unserved. Therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2/4
W.P(MD)No.5886 of 2011
third respondent also will remain bound by this order to maintain status quo.
8.The following order is passed:
a) Impugned order being order dated 28.01.2011 bearing Reference Na.Ka.No.32676/10/A4 passed by the first respondent is set aside on the ground of writ petitioner not being put on notice. In other words, this Court has not expressed any opinion or view on the merits of the matter.
b) The first respondent is directed to take up the matter afresh, issue notice to writ petitioner, respondents 2, 3 and other interested persons if any, give reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned and decide the matter on its own merits.
c) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by first respondent as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
d) As already mentioned supra elsewhere in this order, writ petitioner, respondents 2, 3 and any other person / s concerned with the said lands shall maintain status quo till the disposal of the matter afresh by the first respondent in the aforesaid manner.
e) The order so passed by the first respondent shall be communicated to writ petitioner, second respondent, third respondent and others concerned (if any) under due acknowledgement within seven working days from the date of order of second respondent.
9.Instant Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
3/4
W.P(MD)No.5886 of 2011
ps
To
The Tahsildar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.
W.P(MD)No.5886 of 2011 06.11.2019
VB(20.11.2019) 4P 5C
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of Certiorari can be issued to set aside an impugned order for passing it without giving notice to the petitioner.
Whether the aggrieved party is entitled to maintain status quo pending re-adjudication of the matter.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Kodai Valley Orchards Private Limited
The Tahsildar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District
Chandran
Ramuthai
M. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
