R.Sivasubramani v. The District Collector

1 W.P.(MD)NO.5911 OF 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.04.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.5911 of 2024 AND W.M.P.(MD)Nos.5559, 5560 & 6992 of 2024 R.Sivasubramani ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, District Collector Campus, Theni, Theni District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

3. The Tahsildar, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

4. V.Nagarathinam ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.7605/2023/A9 dated 02.02.2024 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.N.G.A.Nataraj, Government Advocate.

For R-4 : Mr.F.X.Eugene * * * 1/4

2 W.P.(MD)NO.5911 OF 2024

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the Tahsildar,Uthamapalayam including the fourth respondent herein as joint pattadar. The prime argument of the petitioner's counsel is that the enquiry notice dated 24.12.2023 was received fixing the date of enquiry on 29.01.2024. On the said date, the petitioner had appeared along with the counsel and it is stated that the request was made for adjournment. On 02.02.2024 the impugned order came to be passed. In the impugned order, there is no reference whatsoever as to what transpired on 29.01.2024.

3. If the petitioner had made a request for adjournment and the authority was not inclined to grant him, then a formal order rejecting the petitioner's request should have been passed. Without doing so, the authority cannot straightaway pass the order impugned in the writ petition. On the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the third respondent. The petitioner is directed to appear before the third respondent on 24.04.2024 at 3.00 p.m. Neither the petitioner nor the 2/4

3 W.P.(MD)NO.5911 OF 2024 fourth respondent will receive any further notice.

4. In fact, I am duty bound to place on record the contentions advanced by the fourth respondent. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are siblings. Their mother Veerammal had executed a settlement deed dated 27.12.2001 in favour of the fourth respondent settling the petition mentioned property. While so, she had executed another settlement deed dated 20.02.2012 settling the very same property in favour of the petitioner. The Tahsildar had passed the impugned order taking note of the fact that the settlement made in favour of the fourth respondent is prior in point of time. This reason appears to be rather well founded. Though I may not fault the third respondent on merits, I am bound to interfere in this case since there has been violation of principles of natural justice. This writ petition stands allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

08.04.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU 3/4

4 W.P.(MD)NO.5911 OF 2024 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

PMU To:

1. The District Collector, District Collector Campus, Theni, Theni District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

3. The Tahsildar, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

W.P.(MD)No.5911 of 2024 08.04.2024 4/4