Writ petition challenging a Revenue Divisional Officer's order granting patta in S.F.No.36/3H1B on grounds of no hearing. The court held that the petitioner's earlier writ and representation concerned different survey numbers, he had no subsisting interest in the subject land, and dismissed the writ petition.
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.
W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.687, 688 & 13196 of 2016
Pitchaimuthu ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Trichy-1, Trichy District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Lalkudi, Trichy.
3.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Manachanallur, Trichy District.
4.A.Renganathan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent herein in Na.Ka.A2/1905/2015 dated 20.09.2015 and the consequential order passed by the Tahsildar, the third respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.A2-79-2015 dated ..10.2015 and quash the same as illegal.
1/10
For Petitioner : M.R.Rajaraman
W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2016
For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate for R1-3 : Ms.J.Maria Roseline for R4
ORDER
The writ petitioner challenges the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.A2/1905/2015 dated 20.09.2015 mainly on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed.
2/10
W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2016
the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3/10
W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2016
20.09.2015 by the second respondent, which pertained only to S.F.No. 36/3H1B and nothing to do with the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.9651 of 2013. Therefore, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner was not required to be put on notice, since the subject matter, which was under consideration in the impugned order, was pertaining only to S.F.No. 36/ 3H 1B and not the other survey numbers, in respect of which the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.9651 of 2013.
4/10
W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2016
issuance of patta in respect of the survey No.36/3H1B to an extent of 464 square meters, excluding the Thar Road portion of 132 square meters. The learned counsel of the 4th respondent would therefore submit that the petitioner is no way aggrieved by the said impugned order of the second respondent, which has been subsequently implemented by the 3rd respondent.
5/10
W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2016
respondent, who lost her valuable patta lands by way of forcible dispossession, without resorting to acquisition proceedings, filed W.P.No. 10723 of 2013 and in the said writ petition also there was a direction to the authorities to consider the petitioner's request for issuance of Patta. Acting on the said representation, in respect of S.F.No.36/3H1 alone, the impugned order has been passed by the respondents, which is now under challenge at the instance of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he owns the subject lands in S.F.No.36/3H1. It is only his case that the said survey number is classified as a “pathway” and therefore, patta granted to the 4th respondent is unsustainable and liable to be cancelled.
6/10
W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2016
writ petition of the 4th respondent, directed the Tashildar, to issue notice to parties concerned and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 29.04.2013. It is only pursuant to the said orders that the Tashildar has undertaken that the exercise of conducting an enquiry and after finding that the portion of the property measuring 132 square metres has already been laid as a “Thar road” excluding said portion, in respect to the balance portion, the Sub Collector has granted direction to issue patta, which has been subsequently implemented by the Tashildar, Manachanallur.
7/10
W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2016
Index : Yes / No 04.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No LS
W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2016
TO:-
Trichy-1, Trichy District.
Revenue Divisional Office, Lalkudi,
Trichy.
3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Manachanallur, Trichy District.
9/10
W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2016
P.B. BALAJI, J.
LS
Order made in W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2016
Dated: 04.03.2025
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing before the RDO's order granting patta in S.F.No.36/3H1B.
Whether the petitioner had locus to challenge the patta granted in S.F.No.36/3H1B.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pitchaimuthu
The District Collector, Trichy District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalkudi, Trichy
The Tahsildar, Manachanallur, Trichy District
A.Renganathan
P.B. Balaji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
