Disposed

P.Balasubramanian v. The District Revenue officer

Madras HC17 Apr 2021WP/1933/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an enquiry notice issued by the Tahsildar regarding a disputed property title. The Court held that the notice is statutory and not easily interferable, but directed the authorities to consider objections and ensure a hearing before passing orders on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to consider objections, afford a hearing, and pass orders on merits within eight weeks; dismissed the writ petition.

P.Balasubramanian Vs The District Revenue officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.04.2021 CORAM:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶3

W.P.No.1933 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.2186 & 2187 of 2021

¶4

P.Balasubramanian
2. Durai @ Natarajan
3. P.Manickam .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The District Revenue Officer,
District Collectorate Building,
Coimbatore - 641 018.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore North,
Koundampalayam,
Coimbatore - 641 018.
3. The Tahsildar,
Coimbatore North,
Coimbatore.
4. Duraisamy
5. A.Arukutty
6. A.Appadurai
7. N.Sellammal
8. Magesh Kumar .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari, calling for
the records of the third respondent pertaining to his notice
RTR.4408/2020/A8, dated 21.12.2020 and quash the same.

¶5

For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel for Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.M.Manigopi, Government Advocate

¶6

For Respondents 4 to 7 : Mr.B.Karthikeyan

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶9

Challenging the enquiry notice dated 21.12.2020, issued by

¶10

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

¶11

the third respondent Tahsildar, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶12

The facts leading to filing of this writ petition is that, Mr.Duraisamy the fourth respondent herein, said to have filed an application before the third respondent herein, for issuance of patta. Pending that application, the petitioners and other persons claiming right over the property, filed their objections before the Tahsildar stating that, the petitioners are the original owners of the property and by creating forged documents, the fourth respondent is now seeking transfer of patta in his name. A civil suit is also pending between the parties and in such circumstances, the patta should not be granted in favour of the fourth respondent. Considering the objections filed by the petitioner, the Tahsildar has issued the impugned notice for conducting an enquiry and asked the parties to appear on 24.12.2020. Challenging the same the present writ petition has been filed.

¶13

Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that, the title over the property is in dispute and a civil suit is pending before the Civil Court, and therefore the Tahsildar cannot conduct any enquiry to decide title of the property, and he has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice.

¶14

This Court is unable to accept said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Admittedly, the order impugned in this writ petition is only an enquiry notice and enquiry has been ordered based on the objections given by the petitioners. If at all the petitioners have any valid objections in granting patta to the 4th respondent, it is always open for them to produce necessary documents and establish their claim and it is for the Tahsildar to consider the objections and pass suitable orders. It is a statutory notice issued by the third respondent, for enquiry regarding transfer of patta, based on the objections raised by the petitioners. The said notice cannot be interfered with by this Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

In such circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition, however, the Tahsildar, the third respondent herein, is directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioners during enquiry and also afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other persons interested in the matter, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶16

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

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

kk
To
1. The District Revenue Officer,
District Collectorate Building,
Coimbatore - 641 018.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore North,
Koundampalayam,
Coimbatore - 641 018.
3. The Tahsildar,
Coimbatore North,
Coimbatore.
+cc to Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja,Advocate Sr.No 23543
+cc to Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam,Advocate Sr.No 23756
+cc to Govt Pleader Sr.No 23690
W.P.No.1933 of 2021 and
W.M.P.Nos.2186 & 2187 of 2021
AKII (CO)
baf 10/05/2021

¶21

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

P.Balasubramanian v. The District Revenue officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Balasubramanian v. The District Revenue officer

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

K.T.J.Prakash Vs The Taluk Surveyour

V.Satheeshkumar Vs v.Lalitha

P.Esakkimuthu Vs v.Lalitha

Padmavathi Vs The District Collector

B.Boopathy Vs The District Collector

R.Arivu Vs The District Collector