Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sugumaran, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai, in Na.Ka.A7/6660/2023, and to direct the respondents to proceed as per the earlier order of this Court in W.P(MD)No.7212 of 2024 dated 25.3.2024. The petitioner's mother, Chinnammal, purchased 10 cents of land in S.No.165/2X in Mayanur Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, through a registered sale deed dated 27.3.1975. The total extent of S.No.165/2X is 12.35 cents. The petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, having constructed a residential house. Adjacent land of 2.35 cents belonged to the petitioner's grandfather, Karuppannan, who had four sons: Murugan, Arumugham, Ramasamy, and Elangovan. They partitioned the property among themselves and built houses. The sixth respondent, Dhanaraj, claimed ownership of the entire 12.35 cents and filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's patta and directing eviction. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court found that the impugned order was indeed passed without notice to the petitioner, and therefore set it aside. The court directed the second respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and the sixth respondent, afford them an opportunity of hearing, and pass fresh orders on merits within eight weeks. The writ petition was allowed with the above direction.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - The impugned order cancelling patta and directing eviction was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice. The court held that such an order cannot be sustained and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration after hearing all parties. (Paras 3-5) B) Property Law - Land Dispute - Patta Cancellation - The dispute pertained to 10 cents of land in S.No.165/2X, Mayanur Village, purchased by petitioner's mother in 1975. The sixth respondent claimed ownership of the entire 12.35 cents. The Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the petitioner's patta without notice. The court directed the authority to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner and the sixth respondent. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the second respondent without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 30.10.2024 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and the sixth respondent, afford them an opportunity of hearing, and pass fresh orders on merits within eight weeks. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
