P.Jothi Vs the Commissioner of Revenue

Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the respondents 3 and 4 from proceedings with the enquiry in Na.Ka.5713/2024/Aa1

¶25

dated 6.12.2024 (sent on 12.12.2024) issued by the 4th respondent in the capacity as the 3rd respondent pending enquiry against her before the respondents 1 and 2 on petitioner complaint dated 18.11.2024

¶26

PRAYER in W.P.No.7252 of 2025 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

¶27

Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling

¶28

for the records relating to the impugned order dated 03.01.2025 made in Na.Ka.5713/2024/Aa1 passed by the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently delete the name of late Dhanalakshmi in Patta No. 1133 in respect

¶29

of 1.53 acres comprised in S.F.No. 122/2A, Narasingapuram Village, Attur

¶30

Taluk, Salem District.

¶31

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

¶32

3/18 WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶33

For Petitioner(s):	Mr.N.Manoharan for Mr.Ka.Prabaharan
For Respondent(s):	Mr.M.R.Gokulkrishnan
	Additional Government Pleader
	for R1 to R3
	Mr.R.Saravanan for
	Mr.T.Saikrishnan
	for R5 and R6

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The District Revenue Officer, Salem is suo motu added as the 7th

¶36

respondent in both these writ petitions.

¶37

2.The issue involved in both these writ petitions are common and hence,

¶38

they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.

¶39

3.W.P.No.346 of 2025 has been filed to forbear the Revenue Divisional

¶40

Officer, Attur from proceeding further with the enquiry. W.P.No.7252 of 2025

¶41

has been filed challenging the impugned proceeding of the Revenue Divisional

¶42

Officer, Attur dated 03.01.2025 and for a consequential direction to the

¶43

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

¶44

4/18 WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶45

Revenue Divisional Officer to delete the name of Late Dhanalakshmi from Patta

¶46

Nu.1133 with respect to the subject property.

¶47

4.The case of the petitioner is that one Lakshmi Ammal w/o.Ramasamy

¶48

Nayakan was the original owner of the subject property. The said Lakshmi

¶49

Ammal is the mother of the petitioner. By virtue of four Settlement Deeds dated 05.02.2003, 25.11.2004 and 01.03.2010 (2 Deeds), the property was settled in

¶50

the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had put up construction after

¶51

getting necessary approval through Building Approval dated 05.03.2004 and 29.12.2006. A joint patta was issued in the name of the petitioner in Patta No.1133.

¶52

5.Initially, the petitioner made an attempt to construct a compound wall in

¶53

the subject property and the same was objected by the President of the Attur Bar Association. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21260 of 2019 and this writ petition was allowed by an order dated 23.10.2019 and the petitioner was

¶54

permitted to put up the compound wall with police protection.

¶55

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

¶56

5/18

¶57

WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶58

6.The petitioner made a representation to the District Collector stating that

¶59

the name of one Dhanalakshmi Ammal has been included in the patta by mistake. This representation was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer and

¶60

the enquiry notice was also issued by the then Revenue Divisional Officer. The

¶61

Revenue Divisional Officer who had enquired this matter was transferred and the 4th respondent assumed office through proceedings dated 07.02.2024 issued

¶62

in G.O(2D) No.34. The 4th respondent without hearing the parties straight away proceeded to pass an order dated 23.08.2024. This order was put to challenge by

¶63

the petitioner in W.P.No.27867 of 2024 before this Court. This Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds raised by

¶64

the petitioner, allowed the writ petition by an order dated 05.11.2024 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

¶65

2. The limited grievance that has to be addressed in the

¶66

above writ petition is that the impugned order, which runs into several pages, has been passed by an Officer who has neither conducted an enquiry nor heard the parties. The enquiry in the

¶67

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

¶68

6/18

¶69

WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶70

above proceedings was heard by one V.Ramesh, the then Revenue Divisional Officer. The first summons was issued on 13.12.2023 directing the parties to be present on 29.12.2023. Thereafter, the said summons for an enquiry was issued by the said Officer on

¶71

...02.2024 which appears to have been signed by one of the Officers on 25.01.2024 calling upon the parties to be present on 05.02.2024 for an enquiry. Thereafter, by orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2(d) No.34 [Revenue and Disaster Department] dated 07.02.2024, the said Ramesh was relieved from the post of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Attur and the incumbent, Priyadharshini had taken charge in his place. After assuming charge, the said Officer has not called the parties for enquiry. This is evidenced by the fact, in reference No.5 of the impugned order, the Officer would only refer to the notices dated 13.12.2023 and 25.01.2024.

¶72

3. Therefore, taking note of the above facts and without going into the merits of the case, as the principles of natural justice have not been followed, the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the second respondent herein to hear the matter afresh and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving

¶73

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

¶74

7/18

¶75

WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶76

notice to both parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶77

7.The further case of the petitioner is that the present incumbent who is

¶78

the 4th respondent in the writ petition was demanding money and therefore, a complaint was given to the Vigilance Cell. The said complaint was acted upon and it was forwarded to the Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chennai for taking necessary action. In the meantime, the 4th respondent issued a notice th calling for an enquiry. Since the petitioner had made an allegation against the 4 respondent to the effect that money was demanded, the petitioner did not want the 4th respondent to conduct the enquiry. Accordingly, W.P.No.346 of 2025 was filed before this Court. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 10.01.2025, this Court passed the following order:

¶79

Today, the learned Additional Government Pleader would

¶80

produce an order dated 03.01.2025 said to have been passed by

¶81

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

¶82

8/18

¶83

WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶84

the third respondent even before the notice had been ordered by this Court. The order now produced would show that the third respondent has received a petition from the fourth respondent and the order appears to be on the basis of this representation.

¶85

2.This Court asked as to how the third respondent had received a fresh petition from the fourth respondent particularly when this Court had in the order dated 05.11.2024 directed the petitioner to consider afresh the representation which was the subject matter of the earlier order dated 23.08.2024 made in Mu.Mu.8349/2023/Aa1 and this court had directed her to conclude the enquiry within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The third respondent appears to have shown haste in passing orders in the above matter, that too on a fresh petition filed by the fourth respondent. The impugned order dated 03.01.2025 refers to a alleged notice in Na.Ka.No.5713/2024/A1. However, there is no date of the said notice. Therefore, the respondent is directed to produce entire records in Na.Ka.No.5713/2024/A1, which will include all the notices issued and the acknowledgments showing proof of service.

¶86

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

¶87

9/18

¶88

WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶89

3.The third respondent shall also give details of all the petitions relating to transfer of patta, proceedings that is pending before her with the dates.

¶90

4.Post on 23.01.2025.

¶91

8.By the time, the above order came to be passed on 10.01.2025, the

¶92

rd impugned proceedings dated 03.01.2025, came to be passed by the 3 respondent and the same has been put to challenge in W.P.No.7252 of 2025.

¶93

9.The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent has taken a stand that the enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent based on the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.27867 of 2024. That apart, the 3rd respondent after perusing the documents that were produced by both sides found that the petitioner did not prove the title and on

¶94

the other hand, the 5th and 6th respondents had produced valid title documents which correlates with the revenue records and therefore, the order was passed by the 3rd respondent dated 03.01.2025. It is further stated that if the petitioner is

¶95

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

¶96

10/18 WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶97

aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent, an appeal should have been

¶98

filed before the District Revenue Officer and instead, the petitioner has directly filed the writ petition. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has sought for the dismissal of these writ petitions.

¶99

10.Heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.M.R.Gokulkrishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.R.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 5 and 6.

¶100

11.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the haste with which the 4th respondent has passed the impugned order dated 03.01.2025, clearly shows that there was bias in the mind of the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent should not have passed orders, since already a complaint has been given against the 4th respondent before the Vigilance Cell and the enquiry was

¶101

pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without going into

¶102

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

¶103

11/18

¶104

WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶105

the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 03.01.2025, is vitiated on the ground of bias and on that ground alone, the order passed by the 4th respondent is liable to be interfered by this Court.

¶106

12.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondent submitted that false allegations have been made against the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer had properly considered all the relevant documents that were presented by both sides and order was passed on merits and therefore, if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner should have filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer. Hence, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be victimized in this case, since the Revenue Divisional Officer has merely complied with the

¶107

order passed in the earlier writ petition and passed orders on merits.

¶108

13.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th and 6th respondents

¶109

submitted that the petitioner does not have even have a semblance of right over the subject property and that the materials that were relied upon by the 5th and 6th

¶110

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

¶111

12/18 WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶112

respondents sufficiently goes to show that they are having the title and interest in the subject property. The learned counsel submitted that even without going into the issue of bias that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court can independently deal with the case based on the materials relied upon by both sides and if that process is undertaken, this Court will come to a conclusion with respect to the claim made by the 5th and 6th respondents and pass orders in the main writ petition.

¶113

14.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials available on record.

¶114

15.On going through the sequence of events and the various developments that took place after the 4th respondent took charge as the Revenue Divisional Officer and considering the seriousness of the complaint made by the petitioner against the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent ought not to have conducted the enquiry in this case. It is true that this Court had allowed the earlier writ petition

¶115

that was filed in W.P.No.27867 of 2024 and remanded the matter back to the file

¶116

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

¶117

13/18 WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶118

of the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, the nature of allegations that have

¶119

been raised by the petitioner, should have tied the hands of the Revenue Divisional Officer from conducting the enquiry in this case. Under such circumstances, the Revenue Divisional Officer could have sought for a clarification from this Court and the representation made by the petitioner should have been enquired by some other officer or atleast by the District Revenue Officer. Instead, the present incumbent holding the position of Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order dated 03.01.2025.

¶120

16.The learned counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents submitted that this

¶121

Court can deal with the merits of the case instead of dealing with the ground of

¶122

bias raised by the petitioner.

¶123

17.This Court cannot adorn the role of the Revenue Divisional Officer and

¶124

hear the matter on merits. There is a hierarchy of authorities prescribed under

¶125

the Patta Pass Book Act and it is for them to deal with the issue on merits and

¶126

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

¶127

14/18 WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶128

this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶129

India should not be performing the role of those authorities.

¶130

18.If ultimately this Court deals with the writ petitions on merits and finds

¶131

that the 5th and 6th respondents have made out a case, the consequence will be

¶132

that this Court has to uphold the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer against whom allegations of bias has been put forth. Therefore, it will not be appropriate for this Court to deal with the issue on merits considering the fact that such an eventuality may ultimately ensue in this case.

¶133

19.The rule against bias is fundamental to natural justice principle. The test of likelihood of bias is based on the reasonable apprehension of a reasonable man fully cognizant of the facts. In deciding the question of bias, the Court must take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct. The law on this issue is now too well settled. On going through the records, a very serious allegation has been made against the 4th respondent to the

¶134

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

¶135

15/18

¶136

WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶137

effect that the 4th respondent had demanded for money which has resulted in a complaint given to the Vigilance Cell and the matter has already been forwarded to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration for necessary action and the same is pending. Under such circumstances, the 4th respondent should have desisted from hearing the matter. Even when W.P.No.346 of 2025 was rd entertained by this Court, this Court wanted to ascertain as to how the 3 respondent had acted upon the fresh petition that was given by the private respondents when an earlier order was passed remanding the matter back to the file of the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, this Court directed the entire records to

¶138

be produced. In the meantime, the impugned order came to be passed.

¶139

20.This Court does not want to go into the merits of the case and it will suffice if the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 03.01.2025, is rd interfered on the ground of apparent bias. Accordingly, the proceedings of the 3 respondent dated 03.01.2025, is hereby quashed. The matter is relegated to the

¶140

file of the District Revenue Officer, Salem District and the District Revenue

¶141

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

¶142

16/18 WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶143

Officer is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 and

¶144

conduct an enquiry and pass final orders, within a period of eight weeks from

¶145

the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶146

21.In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed with the above directions. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶147

07-04-2025

¶148

Index:Yes Speaking Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes ssr

¶149

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

¶150

17/18

¶151

WP Nos. 346 & 7252 of 2025

¶152

To