Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, R. Muthukrishnan, filed two writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. In W.P.(MD)No.3219 of 2023, he sought a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar and Surveyor to survey lands in S.No.282 at Thummakkundu Village based on his application dated 31.01.2023. In W.P.(MD)No.26216 of 2023, he sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) dated 20.07.2023 passed in an appeal filed by the third respondent, A. Ramachandran, seeking cancellation of a patta in the name of one Prithviraj, to whom the petitioner had sold the property. The factual background was that the petitioner had sold the land to Prithviraj, and a patta was issued in Prithviraj’s name. The third respondent challenged that patta before the RDO. The petitioner was served with an enquiry notice and appeared on 18.07.2023, but the RDO was not in office; the petitioner made a written request for copies of the appeal papers and was told he would be informed of the next hearing date. However, within two days, on 20.07.2023, the RDO passed an order without furnishing the requested copies and without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order on the ground that it violated principles of natural justice. The third respondent argued that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the writ petition since he was not the patta holder. The High Court found force in the petitioner’s submission. It held that because the petitioner was specifically served with the enquiry notice, he had locus standi. The Court observed that when the petitioner had made a written request for copies and the RDO was absent, the RDO ought not to have passed the order hastily without hearing the petitioner. The impugned order was thus in clear violation of natural justice. Consequently, the Court allowed W.P.(MD)No.26216 of 2023, set aside the RDO’s order, and remitted the matter back to the RDO to give both parties an opportunity, consider their contentions, and pass a reasoned order within twelve weeks, also directing that the petitioner’s request for copies be complied with before the enquiry. In W.P.(MD)No.3219 of 2023, the Court noted that the respondents had filed a counter stating that the third respondent was in possession and civil suits were pending, hence survey could not be conducted. The Court found that in view of the pendency of civil suits and the possession finding, the petitioner’s prayer could not be granted at that stage, but granted liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application after the RDO’s decision. Accordingly, that writ petition was closed. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Natural Justice - Violation of Audi Alteram Partem - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order on an appeal to cancel a patta without furnishing copies of documents requested by the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, who had appeared for enquiry. Held, the order was in clear violation of principles of natural justice and was set aside. Matter remitted for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to both parties and furnishing requested documents (Paras 3-4, 9-10). B) Administrative Law - Locus Standi - Right to Challenge Administrative Order - The third respondent contended that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the impugned order because the property had been sold to Prithviraj. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the petitioner was served with enquiry notice and was a necessary party, therefore had locus standi (Para 9). C) Property Law - Survey and Settlement - Pendency of Civil Suits as Bar - The petitioner sought mandamus for survey of his land. Respondents opposed on grounds that third respondent was in possession and civil suits were pending. Held, in view of the pending civil suits and the finding of possession, survey could not be ordered at that stage. The writ petition was closed with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application after the outcome of the RDO's fresh enquiry (Paras 7-8, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, and whether survey should be directed despite pending civil suits and a possession dispute.
Final Decision
W.P.(MD)No.26216 of 2023 allowed; impugned order set aside and matter remitted to RDO for fresh enquiry with opportunity to both parties, and direction to furnish copies. W.P.(MD)No.3219 of 2023 closed with liberty to petitioner to make fresh application after outcome of RDO enquiry. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- adherence to principles of natural justice
- right to be heard
- furnishing of relevant documents
- locus standi of affected party
- pendency of civil suits barring survey
- High Court's power under Article 226
