Kalaiselvi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA 1 Kalaiselvi 2 Malaiyappan ...

Petitioners Vs 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

2 The Thasildhar, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

3 Chandran ...

Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the notice in Na.Ka.No.3633/2024/A7, dated Nil.12.2024, signed on 16.12.2024, and issued by the 1st respondent, and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.A.Kannan, Addl. Govt. Pleader.

For Respondent 3 : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed, challenging the notice, dated Nil. 12.2024, issued by the first respondent.

2. The petitioners purchased the subject property in Survey No. 97/6, measuring an extent of 0.5.50 ares in Gopalapuram Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District, on 05.09.2018. Patta for the said property was mutated in favour of the petitioners vide proceedings, dated 24.09.2024. While so, the third respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.138 of 2024 on the file of Sub-Court, Aranthangi, against the petitioners and also the second respondent herein, seeking the relief of recovery of possession and also for declaration of patta proceedings, dated 24.09.2024, as null and void. The petitioners received the impugned notice from the first respondent for an enquiry, on the complaint given by the third respondent, against the revenue officials. Challenging the said enquiry notice, the petitioners filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notice is illegal, as the Sub-Court, Aranthangi, is seized of the matter. He further submits that pending enquiry against the revenue officials, the petitioners apprehend that the patta issued in favour of the petitioners may be cancelled and hence the impugned notice is to be set aside.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the materials available on record.

5. A bare reading of the impugned notice clearly shows that it is an enquiry notice, for an enquiry to be conducted on 30.12.2024, on the complaint given by the third respondent, against the revenue officials. The said enquiry notice has nothing to do with the cancellation of the patta of the petitioners. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners that their patta would be cancelled is unfounded. As the enquiry notice itself clearly states that it is for an enquiry, based on the complaint given by the third respondent, against the revenue officials, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition.

6. Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.(MD) No.491 of 2025 is closed. 22.01.2025 NCC :

Yes / No (2/2) Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No dixit

To:

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

2 The Thasildhar, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

N.MALA, J.

dixit (2/2) 22.01.2025