Petitioner challenged an order altering her land rights despite lack of notice. Court set aside the order for violating natural justice, restoring the matter for a merits-based enquiry.
The impugned order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The petition by the 4th respondent is restored to file for an enquiry on 11.01.2024.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.17582 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.17582 of 2022
P.Kannathal
... Petitioner
Vs.
4.Mariganesh
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the fake Patta No. 189 based order by 2nd respondent in Ni.Mu.No.7838/2016/G5 dated 26.03.2018 quash the same.
1/4
W.P(MD)No.17582 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kannathal, Party-in-person For Respondents : Mr.M.Prakash, Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3. Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar for R4.
ORDER
Heard the petitioner in person, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
2.The fourth respondent / Mariganesh submitted a petition before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai for correcting what according to him was an UDR error in respect of the petition mentioned survey number. The District Revenue Officer accepted the claim of the fourth respondent and passed order dated 26.03.2018. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3.The case of the petitioner is that her father / Bagavathy Thevar executed settlement deed dated 01.08.2016 and that based on the same, patta was also subsequently mutated in her favour. Of course, the patta 2/4
W.P(MD)No.17582 of 2022
mutation by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar took place on 29.05.2018. The impugned order was passed by the District Revenue Officer on 26.03.2018. However, the fact remains that notice was issued only to one Bagavathy Thevar and not to the writ petitioner herein. The petitioner had claimed right on the property by virtue of settlement deed dated 01.08.2016. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The petition submitted by the fourth respondent before the second respondent shall be restored to file. The second respondent will hold an enquiry in the matter on 11.01.2024 at 03.00 pm. It is for the second respondent to conduct an enquiry and dispose of the matter and pass an order on merits and in accordance with law. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter.
4.The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.
No costs.
20.12.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias
3/4
W.P(MD)No.17582 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
To:-
W.P(MD)No.17582 of 2022
20.12.2023
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order affecting a property right is valid when the petitioner, claiming rights via a settlement deed, was not issued notice?
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by passing a final order in a matter not noticed to the petitioner?
P.Kannathal
The District Collector, Madurai
Mariganesh
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
