Case Note & Summary
This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the first respondent, the Assistant Collector, Paramakudi Division, and for a direction to restore the patta in survey numbers 255/2B and 255/2C. The petitioner, Boss, claimed that the patta had been mutated in his name based on registered documents in his favour. He alleged that the first respondent cancelled the patta without any notice to him, acting solely at the instance of the fourth respondent, K.P. Panneerselvam, who had no right, title, or interest over the property. The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The Madras High Court, upon examining the impugned order, found that it was passed without any prior notice to the petitioner and was based merely on the application of the fourth respondent. The Court held that cancelling a patta without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected party amounted to a violation of the fundamental principle of natural justice, audit alteram partem. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for fresh enquiry. The first respondent was directed to issue advance notice to the petitioner, the fourth respondent, and any other interested parties, consider their objections, and pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Revenue Law - Patta Cancellation - Principles of Natural Justice - Not mentioned - Dispute pertained to cancellation of patta without notice to the petitioner after patta was mutated in his name based on registered documents - The Madras High Court quashed the impugned order passed by the first respondent, finding that the petitioner was not put on notice and the order was passed merely based on the application of the fourth respondent - Held that passing an order cancelling patta without notice to the affected party violates natural justice, remitted the matter for fresh enquiry after giving advance notice to the petitioner, fourth respondent, and any other interested parties, with a direction to pass an order on merits within twelve weeks (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order cancelling the patta without notice to the petitioner is valid?
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned order set aside. Matter remitted to first respondent for fresh enquiry after issuing advance notice to petitioner, fourth respondent, and any other interested parties, and to pass orders within twelve weeks. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- violation of natural justice
- patta cancellation without notice is null and void
- revenue authorities must give notice before recording changes in patta
