Muthazhaki v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER and W.M.P.(MD)No.3222 of 2026 Muthazhaki ... Petitioner -vs1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
2.The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Tiruchendur Taluk Office, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/121/97 dated 12.11.2019 and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to reissue Free House Assignment patta to the petitioner in respect of the land in Plot No.62, to an extent of 0.01.20 Hectares situating in Survey Nos.107/6A4, 107/6A5, 110/4A and 110/4D in Keela Tiruchendur Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Arun For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/121/97 dated 12.11.2019 and consequently, to direct the respondents to reissue Free House Assignment patta to the petitioner in respect of the land in Plot No.62, to an extent of 0.01.20 Hectares situating in Survey Nos.107/6A4, 107/6A5, 110/4A and 110/4D in Keela Tiruchendur Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not put on notice before the impugned order was passed, which led to cancellation of assignment of land given to her. The petitioner's fundamental right to be heard before any order adversely affecting her interests was passed, has been violated. It is well-established that when an administrative action such as, the cancellation of an assignment is taken, the persons affected should be provided notice and an opportunity to present their case. By not being put on notice, the petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity to make representations
or challenge the basis of the cancellation, causing prejudice to her rights and interests. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, and the Writ Petition may be allowed.
3. When questioned, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents fairly submits that the impugned order does not disclose that the petitioner was put on notice before the said order was passed.
4. The impugned order does not reflect that the petitioner was given an opportunity to present her case before it was passed. Since the petitioner was affected by the cancellation of allotment of land without being put on notice, the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice.
5. For the above reason, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The second respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject matter, call for objections, and conclude the enquiry after considering the objections raised by the petitioner, and pass appropriate 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.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. NCC : Yes / No (K.SURENDER, J.) Index : Yes / No 16.02.2026 smn2 (2/2) To:- 1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
2.The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Tiruchendur Taluk Office, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
K.SURENDER , J.
smn2 16.02.2026 (2/2)