Quashed

Gurusamy v. State Rep By

Madras HC8 Apr 2022WP(MD)/6612/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed an order rejecting a statutory appeal due to non-appearance. It remanded the matter for a fresh hearing on merits after affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, citing satisfactory reasons for their absence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.02.2022 quashed; matter remanded to first respondent for fresh inquiry within four months; final orders to be passed after fair hearing.

Gurusamy Vs State Rep By — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.6612 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.04.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.6612 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.5105, 5106 and 5107 of 2022

¶7

1.Gurusamy

¶8

2.Elamparithy ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.State represented by The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirumangalam, Madurai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. 4.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Tiruparankundram Taluk, Madurai District. 5.Pitchaiammal 6.Rajamani 7.Indhirani ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent in Mu.Mu. No.1636/2019/A3 dated 13.02.2020 and the proceedings of the first respondent in Ni.Mu.No.12438/2020/G2 dated 22.02.2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry by providing opportunity to the petitioners and complete the enquiry within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶12

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

¶13

1/3

¶14

W.P.(MD).No.6612 of 2022

¶15

For Petitioners For R-1 to R-4

¶16

: Mr.R.Senthil Kumar : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the first respondent under which the petitioners' statutory appeal was rejected on the ground that they failed to appear in the proceedings.

¶19

2. According to the petitioners, only due to COVID-19 pandemic, they could not appear before the first respondent and only on that ground, they have filed this Writ Petition. It is the contention of the petitioners that in so far as the merits of the matter is also concerned, they have a good case on merits. According to them, they are the absolute owners of the property, but the respondents 5 to 7 have illegally obtained transfer of patta in their names. According to the petitioners, they must be given an opportunity of hearing by the first respondent.

¶20

3. Admittedly, the statutory appeal filed by the petitioners before the first respondent has been rejected on 22.02.2022 only on the ground that the petitioners did not appear during the hearings even after the receipt of the notices sent by the first respondent. However, the reason given by the petitioners is that only due to COVID-19 pandemic, they did not attend the hearings. The reasons given by the petitioners is satisfactory. Further, the petitioners have also filed several documents along with the Writ Petition to substantiate their claim that erroneously, the second respondent has issued an order dated 13.02.2020, under which, the patta was transferred in favour of the respondents 5 to 7. The petitioners should not suffer, if they have a genuine case on merits.

¶21

4. Since the petitioners were not heard in the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 22.02.2022, this Court is of the considered view that the matter should be re-heard by the first respondent due to the aforementioned reasons.

¶22

5. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the first respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration and the first respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondents 5 to 7 and any other necessary party, whom the first respondent deems fit to enquire, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

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

¶24

2/3

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.6612 of 2022

¶26

6. With the aforesaid direction, 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 (CO)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

Lm To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirumangalam, Madurai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. 4.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Tiruparankundram Taluk, Madurai District.

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.R. SENTHILKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-17844[F] dated 11/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-17917[F] dated 11/04/2022 )

¶33

W.P.(MD).No.6612 of 2022 08.04.2022 RK(21/04/2022) 3P 7C

¶34

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

¶35

3/3

Gurusamy v. State Rep By

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurusamy v. State Rep By

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

Muthupandian @ Muthupandi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Sarathi K Vs the Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Balasubramani .S Vs Amanullah Khan.S

Ganasekaran.R Vs The National Highways Authority of India

Karuppiah Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M/s. Kremmer Sandagren Foundation Vs The Sub-Registrar