Allowed

S. Manickam @ Lakshmi, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC7 Jun 2022WP(MD)/10103/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling the petitioner's patta based on anonymous letters without a formal appeal. The Court held that revenue authorities cannot interfere in patta orders for private properties without aggrieved persons approaching them and set aside the impugned order allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.07.2011 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed.

S. Manickam @ Lakshmi, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.10103 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.10103 of 2011

S.Manickam @ Lakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶12

Meenakshi Thevar (Died)

¶13

3.Udyar 4.Udayar 5.Pitchaikannu 6.Chelladurai 7.Madasamy 8.Ganapathi Thevar ... Proposed Respondents

¶14

(Respondent Nos.3 to 8 are impleaded vide Court order, dated 31.03.2022 in W.M.P(MD)No.14475 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.10103 of 2011)

¶15

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/2739/2010, dated 22.07.2011 and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Pleader For R-3 to R-8 : No appearance

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.10103 of 2011

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging an order, dated 22.07.2011 passed by the first respondent herein under the purported power of exercise of suo motu revision.

¶22

According to the writ petitioner, he is the owner of the disputed property and he was granted patta in patta No.1231 for Survey No.274/2B2. The patta granted by the Tahsildar was not objected by anyone of the interested parties. However, it seems some anonymous letter was addressed to the first respondent. Based upon the said anonymous letter, the first respondent has chosen to exercise his alleged powers of suo motu revision and passed the impugned order under which he has cancelled the patta in favour of the writ petitioner and directed the Tahsildar to restore the patta to the original position. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that admittedly the property in dispute is a private property and the question of exercising suo motu powers by the first respondent does not arise. That apart, the patta granted in favour of the writ petitioner has not been challenged by anyone of the interested persons. Based upon the certain anonymous letters, the first respondent has no power to initiate suo motu revision and revise the order of the Tahsildar.

¶24

However, the learned Government Advocate appearing for R1 and R2 would submit that since some irregularities were brought to the notice of the first respondent and hence the first respondent had naturally was constrained to interfere in the order passed by the original authority. A perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that no person interested in the property has approached the first respondent by way of revision. That apart, any person aggrieved by an order of patta granted by the Tahsildar should file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. No such appeal has been filed by anyone of the interested persons. However, the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer has chosen to exercise his alleged suo motu powers of revision and interfered in the order of the Tahsildar and directed the Tahsildar to restore the patta in its original position after deleting the name of the writ petitioner.

¶25

"(1) First of all, unless the aggrieved persons approaches the revenue authorities, the revenue authorities have no role whatsoever to interfere in the order of patta especially with regard to private properties.

¶26

(2) That apart, except District Revenue Officer, no other authority can exercise his suo motu power of revision under Patta Passbook Act, 1983. However, in the present case, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

2/3

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.10103 of 2011

¶29

first respondent who is subordinate to District Revenue Officer has exercised his suo motu powers."

¶30

Viewed from any angle, the impugned order does not stand the scrutiny of law. The impugned order is set aside. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶35

btr

¶36

Note :

¶37

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶38

¶39

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶40

2.The Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶41

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-24575[F] dated 08/06/2022 )

¶42

+1 CC to M/s.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-24664[F] dated 08/06/2022 )

¶43

W.P.(MD).No.10103 of 2011 07.06.2022

¶44

RD(16.06.2022) 3P 5C

¶45

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

¶46

3/3

S. Manickam @ Lakshmi, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Manickam @ Lakshmi, v. the Revenue Divisional 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

M.Abimannan Vs the Branch Manager

Pmr Matriculation Higher Vs the District Registrar of

V. Shanmugananthan, Vs the District Revenue Officer

Singapulipandian Vs the District Collector

R. Subbulakshmi, Vs the District Collector

V.C. Vaithialingam, Vs the District Collector