P. Meyyanathan, v. The Tahsildar,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.08.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 P.Meyyanathan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Tahsildar, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

2.D.Ramasubramaniam 3.A.R.Silambayee ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in pursuant to the notice issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.AA9-20132-2012, dated 02.01.2013 and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachala For R1 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader For R2 : No appearance For R3 : M/s.Nandhini Priyadarsini for M/s.D.Geetha ***** 1/4

O R D E R

The present writ petition has been filed challenging an enquiry notice issued by the first respondent herein calling the respondents 2 and 3 to attend an enquiry relating to patta proceedings. 2.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he is a lesse of one Ramasubramaniam to whom notice has been issued by the first respondent herein.

3.A perual of the impugned notice reveals that the first respondent has called for enquiry only the third respondent and one Ramasubramaniam and the petitioner has not at all been called for the enquiry.

4.That apart, the petitioner claims himself to be a lessee of the said Ramasubramaniam. The first respondent herein is the competent authority to conduct an enquiry relating to patta under the Patta Passbook Act and hence, the notice issued to the first respondent herein cannot be 2/4

questioned.

5.In view of the above said facts, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 11.08.2022 Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No Tmg To The Tahsildar, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

3/4

R.

VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

Tmg Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

Order made in 11.08.2022 4/4