Quashed

K.Senthilkumaran v. The District Collector

Madras HC25 Mar 2022WP/40434/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the court set aside an impugned order where the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled a patta without serving notice and encroached upon civil court jurisdiction by deciding title. The court held the order illegal for violating natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.09.2015 in Na.Ka.No.5098/2014/A1 passed by the third respondent is set aside.

K.Senthilkumaran Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

W.P.No.40434 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

K.Senthilkumaran

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District.

¶10

2.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur District.

¶11

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri Taluk.

¶12

4.The Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk.

¶13

5.The Inspector of Police, Manali New Town Police Station, Manali New Town.

¶14

6.G.Subramani ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent passed in proceedings vide Na.Ka.No.5098/2014/A1, dated 22.09.2015 and to quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner	:	M/s.R.Kamala Rani
For Respondent
Nos.1 to 5	:	M/s.M.Rajendiran
		Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent
No.6	:	No appearance

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent passed in proceedings vide Na.Ka.o.5098/2014/A1, dated 22.09.2015 and to quash the same.

¶20

By the impugned proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer has cancelled the patta without issuing notice to the Pattadhar. The relevant portions of the impugned order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the third respondent reads as follows:-

¶21

"nkw;go g[y vz; .292/2B1B gug;g[ 0/10/5 Vh;!; epyk;/ mjd; gl;lhjhuh; jdJ kfd;fSf;F brl;oy;bkd;l; bra;J bfhLj;j. ,uz;L gj;jpu';fisa[k; (Mtz vz;fs;/3750/2007 kw;Wk; 5083/2007) uj;J bra;Jtpl;lepiyapy; kDjhuhpd; Kjy;th; jpU.Rg;gpukzp kfd; jpU.mgpnecp; Kj;J gj;jpu vz;/5921/2007-d;go jpU/bre;jpy;Fkud; vd;gtUf;F fpiuak; bra;J. mjd; mog;gilapy; gl;lh khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ bry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd;gJ tpy;y';fr;rhd;wpid ghprPyid bra;jjpy; ,Ue;J mwpag;gLfpwJ. nkYk; 05/05/2015. 01/06/2015. 13/07/2015 kw;Wk; 15/09/2015 md;W jpU.bre;jpy;Fkud; j/bg/fjph;nty; ehlhh; vd;gtUf;F miHg;ghiz mDg;gg;gl;ljpy; tprhuizf;F M$uhftpy;iy. nkYk; nkw;go tpr;R{h; -2 fpuhkj;jpy; jpU.bre;jpy;Fkud; j/bg fjph;nty; ehlhh; vd;gth; trpf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk; brd;idapy; trpj;J tUtjhf tprhuizapy; bjhpatUtjhf tpr;r{h; -2 fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; jdJ mwpf;ifapy; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/

¶22

vdnt bghd;ndhp tl;lk;/ vz;/150-tpr;R{h; -2 fpuhk g[y vz; .292/2B1B gug;g[ 0/10/5 Vh;!; epyk; jpU/bre;jpy;Fkud; j/bg/fjph;nty; ehlhh; vd;gtuJ bgahpy; cs;s gl;lh vz; 3600-I uj;J bra;J. jpU/$p/Rg;gpukzp j/bg/gp/v!;/fzgjp vd;gthpd; bgahpy; gl;lh khw;wk; bra;a bghd;ndhp tl;lhl;rpaUf;F cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.

¶23

Fwpg;g[ ,t;t[j;jutpd; kPJ Ml;nrgid VJk; ,Ug;gpd; ,t;t[j;jut [ fpilf;fg;bgw;w 30 jpd';fSf;Fs; khtl;l tUtha; mYtyh;. jpUts;Sh; mth;fsplk; nky;KiwaPL bra;Jbfhs;syhk;/ "

¶24

From reading of the above impugned order, it is clear that as per the report of the Village Administrative Officer, summons could not be served on the pattadhar, since he is residing in Chennai. In spite of recording, no notice was served on the other side, but he proceeded to pass orders on merits. In this process, the third respondent had also indulged to usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and decided the issue of title. The impugned order on the face of it is illegal and is not sustainable for violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 22.09.2015 in Na.Ka.No.5098/2014/A1 stands set aside. It is open to the parties to workout their remedies in the manner known to law.

¶25

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

¶26

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (CS-IX)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

asi

¶32

¶33

1.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District.

¶34

2.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur District.

¶35

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri Taluk.

¶36

4.The Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk.

¶37

5.The Inspector of Police, Manali New Town Police Station, Manali New Town.

¶38

+1cc to M/s.R.Kamala Rani, Advocate SR. No. 20504 +1cc to Government Pleader SR. No.21029

¶39

W.P.No.40434 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶40

SPD (CO) PR (13/04/2022)

¶41

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

K.Senthilkumaran v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Senthilkumaran v. The District Collector

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

M.Govindammal, Vs the Correspondent

M/S Sri Krishna Smelters Ltd. Vs the Union of India

M/S.Vasavi Oil Stores Vs M/S.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

S.Suresh Babu, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.Gonvindarajulu Vs the Governor

Seethapathi Vs The Junior Engineert.