D.Chandran v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and WMP Nos.30051, 30052 and 30054 of 2025 D.Chandran : Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Thiruvallur 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, R.D.O. Office Compound, Pattabiramapuram Village, Tiruttani 3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office Compound, Pattabiramapuram, Tiruttani 4.Jayaramulu 5.Kannaiyan : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order vide Na.Ka.No.1107/2024/AA1dated 15.02.2024 issued by the third Respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Varsha, 1/5

for Mr.M.Mahamani For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish, Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3

ORDER

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. In view of the order that this Court proposes to pass and also the limited relief that is sought to be granted, notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is dispensed with.

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the third respondent, whereby the B memo dated 13.10.2020 issued to the petitioner was cancelled on the basis of a representation made by the fourth respondent, without even putting the petitioner's on notice.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been in possession of the land comprised in Survey No.63/3, measuring an extent of 2.79.50 hectares classified as Anadeenam Land for last ten years and the petitioner has been cultivating Mango, Coconut, Jackfruit, Sapota, etc. in the subject property. It is submitted that inasmuch as the petitioner is not in lawful possession, he has been issued with B memo and the amounts set out in the B 2/5

memo has also been paid. The B memo is only an indicator of the fact that the petitioner is in possession, though it may not be lawful. However, the impugned order cancelling the B memo on the basis of the representation made by the fourth respondent without even putting the petitioner on notice is in violation of principles of natural justice and thus cannot be sustained.

3. Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that they would issue notice to the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 and thereafter, reconsider and pass orders afresh, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In view thereof, impugned order is set aside. The third respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 and thereafter reconsider the matter and pass orders afresh. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP Nos.30051, 30052 and 30054 of 2025 are closed. 28.07.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order mrn To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate Building, 3/5

Thiruvallur 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, R.D.O. Office Compound, Pattabiramapuram Village, Tiruttani 3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office Compound, Pattabiramapuram, Tiruttani 4/5

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

(mrn) 28.07.2025 5/5