Madras High Court
T.Balakrishnan vs The District Collector on 24 September, 2021
W.P.No.18191 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.18191 of 2013 and
MP.Nos.1 & 3 of 2013
T.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Ariyalur District,
Ariyalur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ariyalur Division,
Ariyalur District.
3.The Tahsildhar,
Ariyalur Taluk,
Ariyalur District.
4.Venkatesan
(cause title amended as per order dated
23.08.2013 in MP.No.2 of 2013 in
WP.No.18191 of 2013) ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to the
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.18191 of 2013
orders of the second respondent in Na.Ka.A5/179/2013 dated 31.05.2013
relating to grant of joint of patta in Survey No.1/5A of Nagamangalam
Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kamadevan
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson
R1to R3 Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
********
ORDER
Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for
records pertaining to the orders of the second respondent in
Na.Ka.A5/179/2013 dated 31.05.2013 relating to grant of joint of patta in
Survey No.1/5A of Nagamangalam Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur
District and quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the
property to an extent of 2.64 acres of dry lands comprised in Survey
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.18191 of 2013
No.1/5A, out of the total extent of 6.84 acres situated at Nagamangalam
village, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District by the registered Sale Deed dated
22.09.2008. Originally the said property belonged to one Viswanatha Asari
who had two sons, Saminatha Asari and Gangachala Asari. After the death
of the Viswanatha Asari, his two sons were enjoying the same and there was
a family partition in the year 1984. Accordingly, they were allotted equal
shares. The share allotted in favour of the Saminatha Asari was purchased
by the petitioner. Thereafter, he applied for patta before the third respondent
and after conducting detailed enquiry, the third respondent issued separate
patta in favour of the petitioner by the proceedings dated 03.11.2008.
During the life time of the said Saminatha Asari, he filed suit in O.S.No.
185/1989 as against his brother Gangachala Asari on the file of the District
Munsif, Ariyalur claiming exclusive right and title over the entitle
properties ignoring the family arrangement. Therefore, the said suit was
dismissed by the Judgment and Decree on 31.03.1992. In fact, the appeal
was also dismissed and the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court
had become final.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.18191 of 2013
3. While being so, the fourth respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.36 of
2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Ariyalur for declaration for the very
same property disputing title over the property whether the legal heirs of the
Saminatha Asari or the legal heirs of the Gangachala Asari having valid title
to convey the property. While pending suit, the fourth respondent
approached the first respondent for seeking patta in his favour for the very
same property. The same was forwarded to the second respondent and the
second respondent treated the said request as an appeal as against the Order
passed by the third respondent on 03.11.2008.
4. On perusal of the orders passed by the second respondent revealed
that on receipt of the report from the third respondent canceled the patta
issued in favour of the petitioner and transferred the patta in favour of the
fourth respondent herein. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner
and no enquiry was conducted. Only on receipt of the report from the third
respondent, the second respondent passed the impugned order. That apart,
the civil suit filed by the fourth respondent is still pending in O.S.No.36 of
2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur seeking declaration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.18191 of 2013
of the very same property. However, the second respondent without issuing
any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry passed the
impugned order. It clearly violates the principles of natural justice and it
cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 31.05.2013 is
quashed. It is remanded back to the second respondent for passing fresh
orders. The second respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner
and the parties concerned and after giving opportunity of hearing to them
and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. With the above directions, this writ petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to
costs.
24.09.2021
lok/rgi
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.18191 of 2013
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok/rgi
To
1.The District Collector,
Ariyalur District,
Ariyalur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ariyalur Division,
Ariyalur District.
3.The Tahsildhar,
Ariyalur Taluk,
Ariyalur District.
W.P.No.18191 of 2013
24.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
