Allowed

Sethuraman v. the Revenue Divisional

Madras HC22 Aug 2024WP(MD)/4567/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order passed in patta proceedings without issuing notice to the petitioner. Holding the order arbitrary and violative of natural justice, the bench set it aside and remanded the matter with directions for a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.09.2010 set aside; matter remitted to first respondent for afresh consideration after issuing notice and providing personal hearing; disposal within six weeks.

Sethuraman Vs the Revenue Divisional — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.4567 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.4567 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.3650 and 3651 of 2017

¶7

Sethuraman .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai.

¶10

2.The Thasildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai.

¶11

3.C.R.Lakshmi

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent dated 30.09.2010 in proceedings Ne.Mu.No. 8372/2010/N, quash the same as the same is arbitrary, ultravires, contrary to the principles of natural justice, audi alteram partem.

¶14

1/5_________ Page 1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.4567 of 2017

¶17

For Petitioner :Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For R1 & R2 :Mr.D.S.Neduncheziyan, Government Advocate For R3 :Mr.S.Natesh

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Challenging the impugned order having been passed without

¶20

notice to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition

¶21

2.The petitioner would submit that the property, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, comprised in R.S.No.58/4 to an extent of 94 cents situated Thuvariman Village, Madurai South Taluk, Arasaradi Sub District, Madurai, originally belonged to one Renganathan, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed No.4851/06.09.1962. After his demise, the property devolved upon his son viz., Rajagopalan, who has executed a registered sale deed, dated 10.06.1993 in favour of the petitioner. From the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and based on which, he has also got patta in his name in proceedings R.T.R.No.2316/2003.

¶22

2/5_________ Page 2 of 5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.4567 of 2017

¶25

3.The third respondent appears to have filed an appeal before the

¶26

first respondent claiming right over the aforesaid property. However, without issuing notice to the petitioner, the first respondent has passed the impugned order in and by which, included the name of the third respondent in the joint patta. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

4.The third respondent has entered appearance through counsel.

¶28

5.It is conceded that in the appeal proceedings notice has not been issued to the petitioner herein, orders have been passed behind his back.

¶29

6.Considering the fact that the principle of natural justice have been thrown to the winds, the order passed by the first respondent dated 30.09.2010 in proceedings Ne.Mu.No.8372/2010/N is hereby set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for considering the appeal afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner and the third respondent; giving them a personal hearing

¶30

3/5_________ Page 3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.4567 of 2017

¶33

and disposing of the appeal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected

¶34

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

22.08.2024

¶36

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai. 2.The Thasildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai.

¶37

4/5_________ Page 4 of 5

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.4567 of 2017

¶40

P.T.ASHA, J. Ns

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.4567 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.3650 and 3651 of 2017

¶42

22.08.2024

¶43

5/5_________ Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sethuraman v. the Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sethuraman v. the Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohamed Ibrahim Rahman. S Vs The Director of Town and Country Planning

Easwaran, Vs the Tahsildar

Christopher Gonzalvez Vs the District Revenue Officer

Subramaniyan Vs The District Collector

R.Muthukumar Vs The District Collector

M.Muniasamy Vs The Sub-Collector