Kannan v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2846 and 2847 of 2022 Kannan ... Petitioner vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District , Madurai-625 020.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai-625 020.

3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk Office, Madurai District, Madurai-625 020.

4.Poochammal ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent vide office proceedings in Ni.Mu.No.36334/2015/G5 dated 19.04.2021 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to 3 directing the respondents to restore petitioner's 1/5

bearing patta No.2240 in Survey No.89/9E1 to an extent of 40 cents in situated at Solanguruni Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District in favour of the petitioner.

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Karunannidhi For R1 to R3 :Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader For R4 :No Appearance *****

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent in Ni.Mu.No.36334/2015/G5 dated 19.04.2021 and to issue patta in his favour in respect of the property situated in Survey No.89/9E1 to an extent of 40 cents in situated at Solanguruni Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District.

2.Heard Mr.R.Karunanidhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3.

3.The main ground of challenge to the order impugned in the present Writ Petition is that the petitioner, in whose name, patta was 2/5

standing on the relevant date, was not put on notice and without conducting any enquiry with the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed.

4.I have gone through the impugned order, dated 19.04.2021. In fact, the first respondent recognises the factum of mutation of revenue records in the name of the petitioner. However, no notice was given to the Writ Petitioner before the enquiry was conducted, based on the application of one Mr.Arumugam for correction of UDR entry. The impugned order, therefore, is clearly violative of principles of natural justice. The first respondent ought to have afforded fair opportunity to the petitioner and all other interested parties before proceeding to pass any orders based on the application of Mr.Arumugam seeking correction of UDR records.

5.In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 19.04.2021, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration of the application of Mr.Arumugam, after affording an opportunity to the 3/5

petitioner and all other interested parties and thereafter, conduct due enquiry and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Index :Yes / No 01.04.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District , Madurai-625020.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District , Madurai-625020.

3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk Office, Madurai District, Madurai-625020.

4/5

P.B.BALAJI, J.

cmr 01.04.2025 5/5