The Madurai Bench held that the Revenue Divisional Officer lacked competence to initiate proceedings under Section 13 of the Patta Pass Book Act. Consequently, the impugned proceedings were declared illegal and set aside as non est.
Impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/7142/2020 dated 25.11.2020 set aside as non est; this writ petition allowed.
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.113 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P(MD) No.113 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.108 of 2021
K.Jeganathan .. Petitioner
1/3
W.P(MD)No.113 of 2021
For Petitioner
: Mr.T.Lajapathiroy for
For R1 to R4
For R5
: Mr.M.Jeyakumar, Additional Government Pleader : Mr.A.Sivaji
ORDER
What is challenged in this writ petition is the notice issued by the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi vide Na.Ka.A1/7142/2020, dated 25.11.2020.
2.Mr.T.Lajapathiroy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that under Section 13 of the Patta Pass Book Act, it is the District Revenue Officer, who is the competent authority, not the Revenue Divisional Officer, for exercising revisional jurisdiction.
3.In view of the above submission, Mr.M.Jeyakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader was directed to verify under what enactment, the proceedings has been initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer and after verifying with the officer concerned, on instructions, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the impugned proceedings has been initiated under Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act.
4.The submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader, in the opinion of this Court would amount to conceding the legal position, that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not having competence to initiate the proceedings under Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act.
5.Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the legal objections raised on behalf of the petitioner is to be sustained and the impugned proceedings is liable to be declared per se as illegal and non est.
6.For the above said reasons, the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/7142/2020, dated 25.11.2020 on the file of the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside as the same is non-est in the eye of law.
7.The writ petition is accordingly allowed. It is made clear https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits and
2/3
W.P(MD)No.113 of 2021
demerits of the rival claimants. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-I)
// True Copy //
/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )
To
+1 CC to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER ( SR-3057[F] dated 03/02/2021 ) +1 CC to Mr.A.SIVAJI, Advocate ( SR-3187[F] dated 04/02/2021)
W.P(MD) No.113 of 2021 02.02.2021
dsk
AE/ (16/02/2021) 3P / 7C
3/3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer has the competence to initiate proceedings under Section 13 of the Patta Pass Book Act.
Whether the impugned enquiry proceedings are ultra vires due to lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside as non est.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Jeganathan
The District Collector, Virudhunagar District
The District Revenue Officer, Office of the Collectorate
The Revenue Divisional Officer
The Tahsildar
V. Parthiban
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
