A writ petition challenged cancellation of a long-held patta on land in Kodaikanal Taluk. The court found no notice or hearing preceded the cancellation, set aside the impugned order solely for violation of natural justice, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
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.1578 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.(MD) No.1578 of 2024
Deenathayalapandian ... Petitioner -vs1.The District Collector, O/o. the District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. the Revenue Divisional Office, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District, Dindigul. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Pa.Mu.No.701-67/2019/A2, dated 20.09.2019, served on the petitioner on
Page 1 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.1578 of 2024
03.01.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially directing the
2nd respondent to restore patta in the name of the petitioner qua the land comprised in S.No.768/4A2, Vilpatty Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel, for Ms.H.Jasima Yasmin.
For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan,
Addl. Govt. Pleader.
ORDER
The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 20.09.2019, wherein the patta issued to him was cancelled, has filed the above Writ Petition.
Page 2 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.1578 of 2024
second respondent vide the impugned order, dated 20.09.2019, as the said land was registered as Government Purambugal. The petitioner, aggrieved by the cancellation of his patta, filed the above Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief.
Page 3 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.1578 of 2024 Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner before the patta was cancelled and, therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. On this short ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice and the matter is remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and afford him sufficient opportunity of hearing and, thereafter, pass orders on merit and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
20.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
dixit
_____________ Page 4 of 6_
W.P.(MD) No.1578 of 2024
To:
Page 5 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.1578 of 2024
N.MALA, J.
dixit
W.P.(MD) No.1578 of 2024
20.11.2024
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the patta cancellation order could stand when issued without prior notice or hearing to the patta holder?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deenathayalapandian
The District Collector, Dindigul District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal
The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk
N.MALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
