Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Srinivasan, 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 mandamus to direct the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District, to set aside the suo moto order passed by the fourth respondent, the Village Administrative Officer, cancelling the patta issued in favour of the petitioner in patta No.988 relating to S.No.177/3 of Kottaiyiruppu Village, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai, and to reinstate the patta. The property originally belonged to the petitioner's great grandfather, Late Veeranan, who died leaving behind sons Narayanan, Chidambaram, and Chinnapayal @ Veeranan as legal heirs. Since Chidambaram had only one female legal heir, it was decided that Narayanan and Chinnapayal @ Veeranan would bear her marriage expenses, and they entered into a registered partition deed on 16.02.2017. The petitioner claimed that the fourth respondent cancelled the patta without any notice or opportunity of hearing, which violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner submitted a representation to the third respondent to set aside the cancellation, but no action was taken, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Senthilkumar, and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, Mr. M. Muthumanikkam. The Court observed that the cancellation of patta without notice to the petitioner was illegal and directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks, after giving notice to all interested parties. The writ petition was disposed of with the above direction, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Natural Justice - Cancellation of Patta - The petitioner sought a mandamus to direct the third respondent to set aside the suo moto cancellation of patta by the fourth respondent and reinstate patta No.988. The Court held that the cancellation without notice to the petitioner violated principles of natural justice and directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within eight weeks. (Paras 1-6) B) Property Law - Patta Cancellation - Suo Moto Order - The fourth respondent cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner without any notice or opportunity of hearing. The Court held that such cancellation is illegal and cannot be sustained. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suo moto cancellation of patta by the fourth respondent without notice to the petitioner is valid and whether the third respondent is bound to consider the petitioner's representation and set aside the cancellation
Final Decision
The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.4.2022 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks, after giving notice to all interested parties. No costs.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- right to be heard before cancellation of patta
- suo moto cancellation without notice is illegal
- mandamus lies against revenue authorities for failure to consider representation
