N.Jeyakumar v. Sub-Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.02.2022 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.No.4569 of 2022 N.Jeyakumar
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Sub-collector, Pollachi, Tiruppur District.
2.Tahsildar, Anaimalai, Pollachi Taluk, Tiruppur District.
3.M.Arumugam 4.Malathi 5.T.Selvathal 6.T.Kuppumuthu 7.M.Subramaniam 8.M.Arumugam 9.A.Arunkumar 10.K.Muthulatchmi 11.R.Balusamy 12.R.Mariyammal 13.D.Mariyammal 14.M.Dhanalatchmi 15.D.Senthilkumar 16.T.Pazhaniammal 17.T.Suseela 18.V.Parvathy 19.M.Annammal 1/7
20.K.Balamani 21.B.Amaravathi 22.M.Selvaraj 23.N.Rathinam 24.K.Ponnusamy 25.T.Dharmaraj 26.P.Manokar 27.P.Kittusamy 28.K.Nachimuthu 29.P.Thirumoorthy 30.T.Arumugam 31.N.Arumugam 32.T.Somasundaram 33.G.Jothimani 34.C.Sabarinathan 35.P.Thangamuthu 36.R.Thangaraj 37.K.Sivamani 38.T.Arumugam 39.P.Kittusamy 40.R.Ramasubbu 41.P.Ramasamy 42.C.Thandapani 43.M.Rajkumar 44.T.Sittrarasan 45.G.Maniappan 46.Kumaravel 47.K.Sakthikumar 48.L.Gurusamy 49.K.Nataraj 50.K.Chinappan 51.R.Kanagaraj 52.S.Senthilkumar 53.C.Mariammal 54.T.Chinappan 55.D.Thangamuthu 56.P.Ramaraj 57.T.Sakthivel 58.V.Sivamani 59.P.Kalimuthu 2/7
60.P.Uthaman 61.S.Mayilsamy 62.S.Selvi 63.G.Subramaniam ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.1826/2021/A2 dated 05.01.2022 and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/S.K.Kumaresh Babu For Respondents : Mr.T.Chezhiyan Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.1826/2021/A2 dated 05.01.2022 and quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father is the owner of the land in Ka.Sa.No.668/1A1, Pongaliyur Village, Kottur Majra, Anaimalai Circle, Coimbatore District (hereinafter referred to as "Schedule Property"), and the title deed stands in the name of the petitioner's father. While so, on 07.09.2021, the petitioner receives a notice from the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioner regarding the grant of Patta with respect to the Schedule Property in favour of certain private parties, who are the respondents from 3 to 63 and all these respondents have made an application seeking for grant of 3/7
Patta by claiming that they have resided in the Schedule Property for the past 50 years. Thereafter, the revenue officials recommended for issuance of Patta in favour of private respondents. However, without providing any opportunity to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent proceeded further and issued an ex-parte order in Na.Ka.No.1826/2021/A2 dated 05.01.2022, allowing for the grant of Patta in favour of the private respondents 3 to 63. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present impugned order dated 05.01.2022 has been passed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the private respondents, without providing opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, it is non-erst in law and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing of this Writ Petition.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the impugned order was passed based on the documents available at the relevant point of time. However, the impugned order itself makes it clear that there is an appeal remedy available before the 1st respondent/Sub-collector and the petitioner without exhausting the said 4/7
appeal remedy, has filed the present petition and hence prays for dismissal of this petition.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, it clearly shows that the petitioner was given opportunity for his appearance on 08.09.2021. On that day, the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent and agreed to produce all necessary documents in two months, in order to prove his title, however even after a lapse of more than two months, the petitioner not produced any relevant documents and thereby, the present impugned order was passed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner.
6. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. However, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent by way of filing an appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the limitation period shall not be considered for filing the appeal, as mentioned in the impugned order. If any such appeal is filed within a period of twelve weeks, the 1st respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the same as expeditiously as possible, after providing opportunity of hearing to the private respondents.
5/7
7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28.02.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking order / Nonspeaking order jd/sk To
1. The Secretary to Government Highways Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George Chennai 9.
2. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natrajan Building No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. The Collector, Chennai District Chennai.
4. The Divisional Engineer Highways Department Construction and Maintenance Chennai City Roads Division Chennai 600 015.
5. The Assistant Director, (Urban Land Ceiling) and Competent Authority Adambakkam, Chennai 88.
6/7
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
jd/sk and W.M.P.No.4569 of 2022 28.02.2022 7/7