Allowed

M.Chandrasekaran, v. the District Collector

Madras HC19 Apr 2022WP(MD)/15000/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order cancelling a patta. The Court set aside the order due to the absence of documentary proof of notice to the petitioner, directing a fresh enquiry within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 15.12.2010 by the Revenue Divisional Officer is set aside; a fresh enquiry to be conducted within 12 weeks.

M.Chandrasekaran, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.04.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P.(MD)No.15000 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2011 and 2 of 2010

M.Chandrasekaran

... Petitioner

versus

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶7

The Revenue Development Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶8

The Tahsildhar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai.

¶9

Noor Mohamed Khan

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the second respondent in Proceedings in Ni.Mu.No.11309/2010/N, dated 15.12.2010 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶13

For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.N.Mohideen Baskar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition is filed as against the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the second respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, cancelling the patta granted to the petitioner.

¶16

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

¶17

1/3

¶18

¶19

The petitioner has purchased a piece of land in Survey No.43/5B to an extent of 0.0257 sq. metre. On the application made by the petitioner, patta was originally granted to the petitioner to an extent of 0.0314 sq. metre. On the protest petition filed by the fourth respondent, the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, by the order impugned in this writ petition, cancelled the patta which was granted to the petitioner in excess. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the impugned order has been passed without providing any notice to the petitioner.

¶20

Today, when the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶21

According to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, notice was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

¶22

Though the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that notice was provided to the petitioner, no documents have been placed before this Court that any notice has been provided to the petitioner. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the second respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, is hereby set aside. The second respondent is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry, after providing opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the fourth respondent and conclude the proceedings, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar // True Copy //

¶25

ogy

¶26

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

2/3

The District Collector,

¶31

Madurai District, Madurai.

¶32

The Revenue Development Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶33

The Tahsildhar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai.

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.15000 of 2010 and

¶35

M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2011 and 2 of 2010

¶36

19.04.2022

¶37

SP/27/05/2022/3P/4C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

M.Chandrasekaran, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Chandrasekaran, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arammal, (F- 48/09) Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

N.Kannan Vs the Special Commissioner

Tmt. Lakshmikanthan Ammal, Vs the Principal Secretary &

R. Balasubramanian Vs the Superintending Engineer

Karuppayee Vs the District Revenue

V.Radhakrishnan, Vs the District Revenue