Allowed

S.Jayaseelan, v. The District collector

Madras HC8 Sept 2023WP/12813/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed two writ petitions challenging orders cancelling Patta numbers granted to contesting respondents. The court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer violated principles of natural justice by failing to notify or allot time to defend the case for the petitioners. The impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry with opp

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 12.06.2013 and 10.05.2013 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer were quashed and remanded for a fresh enquiry after affording opportunity to all parties.

S.Jayaseelan, Vs The District collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.12813 & 10 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.Nos.12813 and 10 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.11213, 11214, 15758, 4 & 5 of 2016

¶7

W.P.No.12813 of 2016 and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.11213, 11214 & 15758 of 2016

¶9

S.Jayaseelan ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, GST Road,Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.

¶14

4.The Tahsildar,

¶15

Taluk Office, Sholinganallur,

¶16

O.M.R., Chennai – 600 119.

¶17

5.Village Administrative Officer, Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119.

¶18

Page 1 of 7

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.Nos.12813 & 10 of 2016

¶21

6.The Sub Registrar, Neelangarai, Chennai- 600 115.

7.Mrs.K.Samanthi

8.Mrs.M.Kasthuri

9.K.Pakkirisamy

10.K.Bargunan 11.K.Anand ... Respondents

¶26

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the order of the 3 rd respondent in N.K.1262/2013/A dated 12.06.2013 cancelling the patta number 2513 for Survey No.734/1A1C and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction, consequently direct the 4 th respondent to restore the patta number 2513 for Survey no.734/1A1C in the name of the petitioner's vendor Perundevi Ammal and carry out necessary entries in the revenue records.

¶27

F or petitioner : M/s.R.Amizhdhu For R1 to R6 : Mr.G.Krishna Raja, Additional Government Pleader. For R7 to R11 : Mr.A.Ganesh

¶28

Page 2 of 7

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.Nos.12813 & 10 of 2016

¶31

W.P.No.10 of 2016 and

¶32

W.M.P.Nos.4 & 5 of 2016

Satish Mohan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram.

¶37

2.The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram.

¶38

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, GST Road, Tambaram,

¶39

4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Sholinganallur, O.M.R., Chennai.

¶40

5.The Sub Registrar, Neelangarai, Chennai- 600 041.

¶41

Parvati Ammal

¶42

E.S.Lingamurthy

¶43

S.Kuppuswamy

¶44

S.Saravanasamy

¶45

10.Ammani alias S.Sumathi

11.N.Preetha

... Respondents

Page 3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.Nos.12813 & 10 of 2016

¶51

Prayer:

¶52

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the order of the 3 rd respondent in Na.Ka.4333/2012/A dated 10.05.2013 cancelling the survey number 208/2C covered under patta No.1869 issued to the petitioner and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction, consequently direct the fourth respondent to restore the patta no.1869 for survey number 208/2C in Injambakkam Village, Sholinganallur Village, Kancheepuram District, to the petitioner.

¶53

F or petitioner : M/s.R.Amizhdhu For R1 to R5 : Mr.G.Krishna Raja, Additional Government Pleader. For R6 to R11 : No Appearance

¶54

COMMON ORDER

¶55

The orders impugned dated 12.06.2013 and 10.05.2013 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, regarding grant of Patta in favour of the contesting respondents is under challenge in the present writ petitions.

¶56

The learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that no

¶57

notice or opportunity was afforded to the writ petitioners to defend their case in the Patta proceedings conducted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

¶58

Page 4 of 7

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

W.P.Nos.12813 & 10 of 2016

¶61

Patta Passbook Act 1983. Even the copy of the order has not been communicated to the petitioners which caused infringement of the property right of the petitioners.

¶62

Any revenue proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Patta Passbook Act, 1983, is to be considered by affording opportunity to all the parties who all are holding interest over the subject property. In the present case, the petitioners were deprived of their rights on account of their nonparticipation in the enquiry proceedings. Since, the Principles of Natural Justice has been violated, the cases are to be remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for the purpose of conducting fresh enquiry.

¶63

Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the 3^rd respondent in proceedings No. N.K.1262/2013/A dated 12.06.2013 and Na.Ka.4333/2012/A dated 10.05.2013 are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the 3^rd respondent for the purpose of conducting fresh enquiry by affording an opportunity to all the parties and on merits and in accordance with law. The said exercise is directed to be completed as expeditiously as possible.

¶64

Page 5 of 7

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P.Nos.12813 & 10 of 2016

¶67

With these directions, the Writ Petitions stand allowed . No costs.

¶68

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶69

08.09.2023

¶70

Index:Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes veda/sha

¶71

¶72

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram.

¶73

2.The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram.

¶74

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, GST Road, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.

¶75

4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Sholinganallur, O.M.R., Chennai – 600 119.

¶76

5.Village Administrative Officer, Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119.

¶77

6.The Sub Registrar, Neelangarai, Chennai- 600 115.

¶78

Page 6 of 7

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

W.P.Nos.12813 & 10 of 2016

¶81

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶82

sha

¶83

W.P.Nos.12813 and 10 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.11213, 11214, 15758, 4 & 5 of 2016

¶84

08.09.2023

¶85

Page 7 of 7

¶86

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Jayaseelan, v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jayaseelan, 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

Tridem Port and Power Company Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

R.a.Adithan Vs The District Collector

K.Elumalai Vs The District Colelctor

Mr.Y.Mohamed Abubakkar Vs The Inspector General of

S.Jayaseelan, Vs The District collector

Ootacamund Gymkhana Club Vs State of Tamilnadu