Allowed

K.Sivan, v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC5 Aug 2021WP/33289/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a patta application. It set aside the impugned order passed by a Zonal Deputy Tahsildar who lacked magisterial competence, citing a lack of reasons, and directed the respondent to re-examine the case and pass a reasoned order within 16 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed and set aside; the petitioner was directed to be afforded an opportunity of hearing and the respondent to pass a reasoned order within sixteen weeks.

K.Sivan, Vs The Tahsildar — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 05.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

WP.No.33289/2019 & WMP.No.33753/2019

[Video Conferencing]

K.Sivan

... Petitioner

Versus

The Tahsildar Pochampalli Taluk Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer : -

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 14.11.2019 made in application No.2019/0103/31/118551 for issuance of patta and to quash the same, consequently direct the respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land comprised in survey No.795/1 situated Mookampatti Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District measuring an extent of 1.75 acres forth with.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Government Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(1) The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking to interfere with the order dated 14.11.2019 purportedly made by the respondent/Tahsildar, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District with respect to the application in

¶17

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

¶18

No.2019/0103/31/118551, which application was made seeking issuance of patta.

¶19

(2) Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

¶20

(3) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/Tahsildar, wherein, in paragraph No.12, he has stated that the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar had actually passed an order now complained in the present writ petition and that the said order is legally correct.

¶21

(4) Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner now drew the attention of this Court to the particular order which had been passed where it is only stated that the application is rejected. Reasons have not been given. It has also not been disclosed that the said order has been passed by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar. The competency of the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar to pass such an order, is also questionable. Magisterial powers are not granted to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildars, but only to the Special Tahsildars who are normally called as the Special Executive Magistrates and under that category, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar certainly does not fall. The competency also has to be examined in this particular case.

¶22

(5) That being the reason, naturally the order now complained of in this writ petition, has to be interfered with and set aside and the matter is reverted, without examining the facts stated in the writ petition, back to the Tahsildar, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District and I hope that the officer would realize the significance of examining the representation given by a citizen of this country relating to his valuable land. The attitude of the Tahsildar, Pochampalli Taluk, / respondent herein, in delegating that particular work to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar is seriously condemned and I hope that the learned Government Advocate would bring to the notice of the Tahsildar, the importance of passing an order, viz., a detailed order, after hearing the petitioner herein with respect to the representation dated 01.10.2019.

¶23

(6) The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the respondent is set aside with a direction to the respondent to re-examine and revisit the representation, issue notice to the petitioner, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass a considered order. In any way, the said exercise is to be completed within a period of sixteen weeks from the

¶24

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

¶25

date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

¶31

The Tahsildar Pochampalli Taluk Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.39143 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.39098

¶33

WP.No.33289/2019

¶34

GPL(CO) CT(24/08/2021)

¶35

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

K.Sivan, v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sivan, v. The Tahsildar

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.N.S.Sukumaran Vs R.Lakshmi

P.Damodharan, Vs The District Collector

P.Thirumoorthy Vs The District Collector

S.Palani Vs The Tahsildar

M.Amavasai Vs The District Collector

M.Chinnaraj Vs The Inspector General of Registration