High Court allowed petitioners writ challenging patta transfer order. Held order arbitrary due to lack of notice and hearing. Remanded to Tahsildar for fresh consideration after providing opportunity to both parties.
Impugned order set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after providing opportunity of hearing to both parties.
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.5558 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.5558 of 2022 and WMP(MD) Nos.4498,4499 and 3509 of 2023
... Petitioners
Vs
1.The Regional Deputy Tahsildar – I, Tahsildar Office, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Ni.Mu./TPT/Aa3/6472/2021 dated 02.11.2021 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Natarajan For R1 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.P.Ponraj
1/6
W.P(MD)No.5558 of 2022
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed as against the order passed by the Regional Deputy Tahsildar– I,Virudhunagar District under the
Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, dated 02.11.2021.
2.By the impugned order, the Regional Deputy Tahsildar
has transferred the patta, which stood in the name of one Kondu Reddiyar S/o Tirumal Reddiyar, Kondu Reddiyar S/o Sangaiah Reddiyar and Seethalakshmi D/o Sangu Reddiyar for the land in S.No.107/84A Natham in favour of the second respondent.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioners are the legal heirs of Kondu Reddiar. However, without any notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed.
W.P(MD)No.5558 of 2022
4.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that these petitioners are having an appeal remedy as against the impugned order before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned. However, the petitioner without invoking the appeal remedy has straight away filed this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the first respondent submits that the impugned order has been passed by the Regional Deputy Tahsildar based on a decree, which has been produced by the second respondent in O.S.No.188 of 2018 passed by the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai. However, in the written instructions, the Tahsildar has recorded that the father of the second respondent, namely Perumal Reddiyar has already filed a suit in O.S.No.481 of 2004 as against Kondu Reddiyar/the father of the petitioners, before the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai and the same was dismissed. As against the same, appeal suit has also been
3/6
W.P(MD)No.5558 of 2022
filed in A.S.No.2 of 2007 before the Sub Court, Aruppukottai. While so, it is not known under what circumstances O.S.No.188 of 2018 has been filed and decree was obtained. Even otherwise, the respondent ought to have provided an opportunity of hearing before passing this impugned order. It is also to be noted that the petitioners are having an appeal remedy before the Revenue Divisional Officer.
6.In view of the above, this impugned order is set aside. The mater is remanded back to the The Regional Deputy Tahsildar – I, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District for fresh consideration. The The Regional Deputy Tahsildar – I, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District shall provide an opportunity to both the parties and take a decision within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties shall co-operate and appear before the Regional Deputy Tahsildar – I along with a copy of this order.
W.P(MD)No.5558 of 2022
7.With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
19.09.2023
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai
2.The Regional Deputy Tahsildar – I, Tahsildar Office, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
W.P(MD)No.5558 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
vrn
Order made in W.P(MD)No.5558 of 2022 and WMP(MD) Nos.4498,4499 and 3509 of 2023
19.09.2023
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the existence of an appeal remedy before the Revenue Divisional Officer.
Whether the impugned order of transferring the patta is sustainable in view of lack of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Whether the order passed by the Respondent Tahsildar entitled to be quashed as it is based on a decree without adequate justification and procedure.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Subbaiah, Avudaiammal, Sethuraj, Solaiammal
Regional Deputy Tahsildar – I, Tahsildar Office, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District
Arumugam
B.PUGALENDHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
