Petitioners challenged rejection of their patta application for land in Thoothukudi District. The court found no notice or enquiry was issued before cancellation, violating natural justice, set aside the impugned order, and remanded for fresh consideration within 12 weeks.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P(MD)NO.29227 OF 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.24708 of 2024
1.R.Essakimuthu
3.D.Bharathiraja : Petitioners
.vs.
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent pertaining to the impugned rejection order bearing Nos.2024/0105/28/288810,
2
2024/0105/28/28812, 2024/0105/28/288813 and
2024/0105/28/28816, dated 7.5.2024 and to quash the same as illegal, void, arbitrary and consequently to direct the third respondent to issue patta in favour of the Petitioners for the property situated in Resurvey No.238/19D1, Paramankurichi Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District.
For Petitioners :Mr.M.Mithun
For Respondents :Mr.A.Kannan 1 to 4 Addl.Govt.Pleader
**O R D E R ************
The Petitioner filed the above Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent pertaining to the impugned rejection order bearing Nos. 2024/0105/28/288810, 2024/0105/28/28812, 2024/0105/28/288813 and 2024/0105/28/28816, dated 7.5.2024
and to quash the same as illegal, void, arbitrary and consequently to direct the third respondent to issue patta in favour of the Petitioners for the property situate in Resurvey No.238/19D1, Paramankurichi Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.With the consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.
3
3.The Petitioner purchased the property to an extent of 4.50 cents in Paramankurichi Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District, under a registered sale deed, dated 15.09.1992 from one Durairaj Nadar. As the Petitioner found some mistakes in the four boundaies of the property in the sale deed, a Rectification Deed was executed on 15.4.2024. On the very same day, Durairaj Nadar executed two settlement deeds in favour of second and third respondents and an application for separate patta was also submitted with relevant documents. The third respondent rejected the same on the ground that the land was shown as Natham land in the report filed by the fourth respondent. Challenging the said rejection order, the Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief.
4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of Section 10 of patta Passbook Act and Rule 4(7) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Rules. The counsel further submitted that the third respondent erred in rejecting the Petitioner’s appliation on an erroneous view that the lands were classified as Natham lands.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 fairly conceded that from the impugned
4
order, it was clear that the procedure contemplated under Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act and Rule 4(7) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Rules was not followed. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the matter may be remanded to the third respondent for fresh consideration.
6.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, from a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that no notice of enquiry was issued before cancelling the patta issued in favour of the Petitioners. Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act and Rule 4(7) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Rules clearly contemplate that notice of enquiry should be issued and an enquiry hasto be conducted before orders are passed.
7.As there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice, in my view, te impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded to the third respondent for fresh consideration. It is needless to state that the third respondent shall strictly follow the provisions of Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act and the Rules and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5
06.01.2025
NSC :Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No
vsn
To
6
N.MALA, J.
vsn
ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)NO.29227 OF 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.24708 of 2024
06.012025
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tahsildar's rejection of the patta application without notice and enquiry violated Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act and Rule 4(7) of the Rules?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Essakimuthu
D.Vanaraja
D.Bharathiraja
The District Collector, Thoothukudi District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur Taluk
The Tahsildar, Tiruchendur Taluk Office
N.Mala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
