D. Indira Vs The District Collector

3^rd respondent in NA.Ka.En. 2107/2024/AA1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent no. 1 to 4 herein to restore the old patta bearing No.701 in respect of the land comprised in Sur.No. 239/5 admeasures to an extent of 0.18.0 ares situated at Soolapuram Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District in the name of Chellamuthu Pillai within the time stipulated in accordance with law.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senthil Murugan

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader for R1-4

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 11.07.2024, submitting a report to the second respondent on the request made by the fifth respondent for cancellation of patta that stands in the name of Chellamuthu pertains to property situate in Survey No.239/5, in Soolapuram Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.17070 of 2025

¶30

Heard the arguments of Mr.C.Senthil Murugan, learned counsel

¶31

for the petitioner and Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶32

By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶33

A perusal of the impugned proceedings of the third respondent would indicate that it is in the nature of inter-departmental communication between the second respondent and the third respondent. It appears that the fifth respondent herein filed an application before the second respondent seeking cancellation of patta stands in the name of Chellamuthu in respect of the property situate in Survey No.239/5 and issuance of patta in his name, based on his alleged possession. In response to the application submitted by the fifth respondent, the second respondent called for a report from the third respondent. Therefore, after getting necessary inputs from the fourth respondent, the third respondent by impugned proceedings submitted a report before the second

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.17070 of 2025

¶37

respondent. The said proceeding is challenged by the petitioner, on the ground that the findings of the third respondent has been arrived at without hearing him.

¶38

The petitioner is not entitled to challenge the inter-departmental communication between the second respondent and the third respondent. Now, the application submitted by the fifth respondent regarding mutation of revenue records is pending on the file of the second respondent. Pursuant to the report submitted by the third respondent, the second respondent has to pass final orders.

¶39

In this circumstances, justice will be met by directing the second

¶40

respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner before passing any final orders. Therefore, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, directs the second respondent to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner thereafter, take a decision on the application submitted by the fifth respondent.

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.17070 of 2025

¶44