Allowed¶29

K.Ramalakshmi v. The District Collector

Madras HC14 Mar 2025WP(MD)/6477/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Want of notice / natural justice before revenue authority; patta cancellation application (Moo.Mu.A3/2405/2022); order dated 04.01.2024 concerning S.Nos.433/4 and 435, Sindhapalli Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District set aside; remand for fresh enquiry with hearing of both parties and documentary evidence; twelve-week timeline; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.P.(MD)No.6477 of 2025; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed with no costs; impugned order dated 04.01.2024 set aside and matter remanded to the second respondent for a fresh enquiry on the patta cancellation application after hearing both parties; connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P.(MD)Nos.4767 and 4768 of 2025) closed. ¶29

K.Ramalakshmi Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the second respondent was passed without any notice being issued and served on the writ petitioner.

¶20

Court's answer

On the limited ground of want of notice, the Court accepted the averment in the writ affidavit that the impugned order was passed without any notice to the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader having fairly submitted that the records contain no proof of any notice having been issued before the impugned order.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 04.01.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the second respondent to consider the application for cancellation of patta afresh, after hearing the applicant Sellakani as well as the writ petitioner, affording both parties a fair and reasonable opportunity to provide relevant documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions.

¶28

Key takeaways

On conducting the fresh enquiry, the second respondent shall pass a considered order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench): The order dated 04.01.2024 in Moo.Mu.A3/2405/2022 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur (second respondent) with regard to S.Nos.433/4 and 435, Sindhapalli Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, was set aside solely on the ground that there was no proof of any notice having been issued to the writ petitioner before the order was passed, as fairly conceded by the learned Special Government Pleader from the records. The matter was remanded to the second respondent to consider the application for cancellation of patta afresh after hearing the applicant Sellakani and the writ petitioner, giving both a fair and reasonable opportunity to place relevant documentary evidence, and to pass a considered order on merits and in accordance with law within twelve weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. Writ petition allowed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.6477 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.6477 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.4767 and 4768 of 2025

K.Ramalakshmi

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Complex, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

3.The Zonal Tahsildar, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

4.Sellakani 5.M.Natesan ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Moo.Mu.A3/2405/2022, dated 04.01.2024 with regards to S.Nos.433/4 and 435 situate at Sindhapalli Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the 1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.6477 of 2025

¶17

second respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner and all other necessary parties.

¶18

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Arivalan for Ms.K.Asha For R1 to R3 :Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader *****

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Today, the Writ Petition is listed for the learned Special Government Pleader to produce any evidence to show that any notice was issued and served on the Writ Petitioner prior to the impugned order

¶21

being passed.

¶22

2.Today, the learned Special Government Pleader fairly submits that from the records, there is no proof of any notice having been issued to the Writ Petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed.

¶23

3.Therefore, on this limited ground, accepting the averments made

¶24

in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition that the impugned order was passed without any notice to the petitioner, the impugned order

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.6477 of 2025

¶28

passed by the second respondent, dated 04.01.2024, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for considering the application for cancellation of patta afresh after hearing the applicant Sellakani as well as the Writ Petitioner herein and also affording a fair and reasonable opportunity to both the parties to provide relevant documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. On conducting such enquiry, the second respondent shall pass a considered orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

4.In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶30

Index :Yes / No 14.03.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.6477 of 2025

¶34

¶35