Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pappushan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 12.03.2022 passed by the third respondent, the Tahsildar of Vilavangkadu Taluk, in Na.Ka.No.A2/8479/2018, and to direct the respondents to grant patta for his property situated in S.No.D5/256, Vilavancode Taluk, Kulithurai, Kanyakumari District. The land in question originally belonged to the petitioner's mother, Katheeja Beevi, and was given to the Government in 1981 for constructing a police station and police quarters. In exchange, the Government allotted the petitioner and others land in S.No.D5/256, which is Government poramboke land. The petitioner claimed to have been in possession and cultivation of the land for 37 years. He submitted a representation on 16.06.2017 for grant of patta, but the Tahsildar rejected it via the impugned order. The court noted that the impugned order did not refer to the petitioner's representation and was passed without hearing him. The court held that the order was unsustainable and set it aside, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation afresh and pass orders on merits within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorarified Mandamus - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought quashing of the Tahsildar's order rejecting patta application and direction to grant patta for Government poramboke land - Court held that the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's representation and without affording opportunity of hearing, hence unsustainable - Directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation afresh and pass orders on merits within a stipulated time (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order of the Tahsildar rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of patta in respect of Government poramboke land is sustainable in law, and whether the petitioner is entitled to patta based on long possession and exchange of land for public purpose.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.3.2022 passed by the third respondent is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.06.2017 afresh and pass orders on merits within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. No costs.
Law Points
- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
- Article 226
- Patta
- Government Poramboke Land
- Long Possession
- Exchange of Land
- Public Purpose
- Representation
- Natural Justice
Case Details
Mr.R.Maheswaran for Petitioner, Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Govt Advocate(Civil Side) for Respondents
1.The District Collector, Nagercoil, 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay, 3.The Tahsildar, Vilavangkadu Taluk, Kulithurai, 4.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, STO, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of an order rejecting patta application and direction to grant patta.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 12.3.2022 of the third respondent and to direct the respondents to grant patta for his property in S.No.D5/256, Vilavancode Taluk, Kulithurai, Kanyakumari District.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's mother gave her land to the Government in 1981 for constructing a police station and quarters, and in exchange, the Government allotted the petitioner Government poramboke land in S.No.D5/256. The petitioner has been in possession for 37 years and applied for patta, but the Tahsildar rejected the application without considering his representation.
Previous Decisions
The third respondent passed the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A2/8479/2018 dated 12.3.2022 rejecting the petitioner's patta application.
Issues
Whether the impugned order of the Tahsildar rejecting the petitioner's patta application is sustainable when it does not refer to the petitioner's representation and was passed without hearing him?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to patta for Government poramboke land based on long possession and exchange of land for public purpose?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without considering his representation dated 16.06.2017 and without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
Respondents argued through the Government Advocate that the order was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
An order rejecting a patta application that does not refer to the applicant's representation and is passed without affording an opportunity of hearing is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The authority must consider the representation on merits and pass a reasoned order.
Judgment Excerpts
The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/8479/2018, dated 12.3.2022 and to quash the same and to further direct the respondents to grant patta for the Petitioner’s property situated in S.No.D5/256,Vilavancode Taluk, Kulithurai, Kanyakumari District.
The impugned order does not refer to the representation of the Petitioner dated 16.06.2017. The impugned order is passed without hearing the Petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Procedural History
The petitioner submitted a representation on 16.06.2017 for grant of patta. The third respondent passed the impugned order on 12.3.2022 rejecting the application. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date, which was heard and disposed of on 29.01.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
