Madras High Court
Rama.Rajendran vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 13 December, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.19595 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD) No.19595 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013
Rama.Rajendran ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchirappalli 620 001.
2.Porkodi Pandiyan
3.The Tahsildar,
Tiruchirappalli West,
Tiruchirappalli 1. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records culminated
in the Proceedings No. Rc.A7/5396/2013 dated 24.10.2013 on the file of the 1 st
respondent and quash the same as illegal, unenforceable, ultra vires without
jurisdiction and directing the 3rd respondent not to make any kind of mutation in
the revenue registry in respect of the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.10
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19595 of 2013
cents comprised in S.F.No.217/12A and Ac.0.15-1/2 comprised in S.F.No.
217/15A totally to an extent of Ac.0.25-1/2 situated in Edamalaipatti Prattiyur
East Village, Srirengam Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Sankhar Murali
For R1 & R3 : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
ORDER
The impugned order in this writ petition is an order passed by the first
respondent, disposing of an application filed by the second respondent herein
seeking to grant patta in his name on the strength of the settlement deed dated
08.05.1996 executed by his father, Ramaiya Pillai.
2.None appears for the second respondent.
3.The first respondent had issued summons upon the petitioner and the
fourth respondent for an enquiry. On 26.08.2013, both the parties have appeared.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no date of further hearing was
issued as stated in the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner had no opportunity
of representing his case before the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19595 of 2013
4.Mr.K.S.Sankhar Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that originally the petitioner's father, Ramaiya Pillai on 22.07.1991 had sold the
property to one Gnanaraja and the said Gnanaraja through his power of attorney
has sold the said property in favour of the petitioner on 03.08.2001. These were
all not within the knowledge of the first respondent. If an opportunity is given to
the petitioner, he will place all the materials available with him to substantiate his
case. He would also submit that by an ex parte judgment and decree dated
24.08.2010 in O.S.No.1533 of 2006, the petitioner had also obtained an
injunction against the second respondent from interfering with his peaceful
possession. The said ex parte decree is still in force. The impugned order
proceeds on the presumption that there was no objection from the petitioner, as he
had not appeared on the dates of hearings, which were fixed.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that there was
no notice of hearing for the subsequent dates, namely 10.09.2013, 16.09.2013 and
30.09.2013. The hearing dates indicated in the impugned order are all imaginary
and have been made only for the purpose of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19595 of 2013
6.I have considered the arguments as well as the claim of the petitioner.
7.It is apparent that the impugned order has been passed on a presumption
that the petitioner has no objection. There is no documentary evidence to
substantiate that the petitioner was put on notice on the subsequent hearings. On
that ground alone, I am inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this writ
petition.
8.In the light of the above, the impugned order in this writ petition is liable
to be set aside and the issue is remanded back to the first respondent to conduct a
fresh enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the
second respondent. I am also inclined to direct the petitioner and the second
respondent to appear before the first respondent on 24.01.2023, on which date the
first respondent shall hear the petitioner and the second respondent and pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four
weeks thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19595 of 2013
9.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order
impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the issue is remanded back to the
first respondent herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Speaking : Yes / No 13.12.2022
Non Speaking : Yes / No
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchirappalli 620 001.
2.The Tahsildar,
Tiruchirappalli West,
Tiruchirappalli 1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19595 of 2013
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
mm
W.P.(MD) No.19595 of 2013
13.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
