Skip to content


T.S. Ramachandran Marthandan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWP (MD) No. 14056 of 2012 & MP (MD) No. 2 of 2012
Judge
AppellantT.S. Ramachandran Marthandan
RespondentThe District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District and Others
Excerpt:
.....patta. 3. the further case of the petitioner is that however, erroneously due to the combined patta proceedings by the 3rd respondent again a patta in patta no.1575 was issued in petitioner s name such that it also contained the name of the 4th respondent. therefore, again the petitioner was forced to approach the 3rd respondent again by applying for the deletion of 4th respondent s name. in turn again an enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent, whereby the 3rd respondent by his proceedings in ref. no.rtr 6046/06-07 was pleased to pass an order of removing name of the 4th respondent. the 4th respondent was also noticed and was heard in both the proceedings of the 3rd respondent stated supra. 4. the further case of the petitioner is that however, the 4th respondent having waited.....
Judgment:

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders dated 12.03.2011 Ref.No.Mu.Mu.(A2)148997/ 2011 and 28.01.2011 Ref.No.Na.Ka.A1/5847/2010 passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively and quash the same.)

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned orders dated 12.03.2011 Ref.No.Mu.Mu.(a2) 14897/2011 and 28.01.2011 Ref. No. Na. Ka. A1/5847/2010 passed by the 1st and 2nd respondent respectively and quash the same in so far as directing either parties to approach the 3rd respondent, so as to comply with an order of the Sub Collector, Cheranmahadevi, which is said to have been passed in contrary to the earlier order of the sub Collector, Cheranmahadevi itself.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a Punja land measuring an extent of 5 acres and 16.5 cents comprised in S.No. 623 in Kuttam Village. The petitioner acquired the property by inheritance. However, the 4th respondent having no iota or right over the said property has got included his name in patta No.1666. Therefore an application to remove the name of the 4th respondent from the Patta was made by the petitioner, before the 3rd respondent vide application dated 20.06.2001. The petitioner after long stubble succeeded his case before the 3rd respondent, whereby an enquiry was conducted and vide proceedings in DTR 5493/04-05 dated 10.06.2005 ordered to delete the name of the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent vide communication dated 16.05.2006 directed the petitioner to apply before the 3rd respondent herein for a separate patta.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that however, erroneously due to the combined patta proceedings by the 3rd respondent again a patta in patta No.1575 was issued in petitioner s name such that it also contained the name of the 4th respondent. Therefore, again the petitioner was forced to approach the 3rd respondent again by applying for the deletion of 4th respondent s name. In turn again an enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent, whereby the 3rd respondent by his proceedings in Ref. No.RTR 6046/06-07 was pleased to pass an order of removing name of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent was also noticed and was heard in both the proceedings of the 3rd respondent stated supra.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that however, the 4th respondent having waited for 5 years filed two appeals in the year 2010 before the 2nd respondent. The appeals were taken and combined together. The petitioner was also made written submission to the 1st respondent, not to proceed with the issue as the same is decided already. The 1st respondent in spite of the submission and the production of all necessary documents has chosen to pass the impugned order herein, directing the 3rd respondent to consider the matter afresh. The said order is impugned in this writ petition.

5. Heard Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.D.Nallathambi, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. Though the 4th respondent entered appearance, but has not chosen to file any counter. No representation on behalf of the petitioner.

6. I have perused the affidavit and the typed set of papers filed in support of the writ petition. On plain reading of the impugned order, it is found to be a one paragraph order, came to be passed in a revision made before the 1st respondent as against the order of the Sub-Collector, the 2nd respondent herein. The impugned order, however, runs such that directing the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent to approach the 3rd respondent so as to adhere with the order of the Sub-Collector. Furthermore, there is no discussion about the facts or the documents produced by either side.

7. It is needless to say that any authority, while passing an order in revision as against any appellate order, should arrive at an independent conclusion based on the records available before him. He cannot direct barely the parties to comply with any order which is impugned before him. Only on proper appreciation oral and documentary evidence the 1st respondent should come to a conclusion. The impugned order does not hold good as it is passed without any findings and without application of mind.

8. It is to be noted that the specific case of the petitioner is that there is already an order made by the erstwhile Sub-Collector in respect of the same subject. The said order in favour of the petitioner is also found to be passed on the basis of the reports and enquiry made by the 3rd respondent twice earlier. Therefore, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner is liable to be considered in detail and in a manner known to law.

9. However, the fact remains that there are two proceedings passed by the Sub- Collector, the 2nd respondent with findings contrary to each other. In such case, this court deems fit to direct the 1st respondent to pass a reasoned order with independent findings with regard to the petitioner s claim, after giving due notice besides hearing both the petitioner and the 4th respondent, as well to interested parties if any.

10. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order of the 1st respondent is set aside and he is directed to pass a reasoned order, in any case, the said exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //