Iruthayam vs The District Collector, Thanjavur and Others

R. Mahadevan, J—The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying to quash the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Na. Ka. No. 4102/2007/A5, dated 14.09.2011.

The case of the petitioner is that the land in Survey No. 75/5 measuring 1 acre and 8 cents, is originally belonged to one Savariammal and she executed a power deed in favour of the petitioner''s father viz., Anthonysamy and he executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 18.10.1998 to an extent of 73 cents and the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter, the petitioner formed a lay out in the name and style of M.K. Nagar and got approval from the Panchayat and he sold the plots to third parties. In the meantime, the respondents 4 to 8, alleged that the petitioner''s father sold the property to an extent of 35 cents to third parties and thereafter they purchased the same from them. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 491 of 2000 against the respondents 4 to 8 and the respondents 4 to 8 also filed a suit in O.S. No. 445 of 2000. While so, the fourth respondent filed a petition before the third respondent for grant of patta and the third respondent also passed an order on 03.05.2001 in favour of the fourth respondent without following due process of law. Against which, the petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent and the first respondent remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. Now, the third respondent passed the impugned order after five years without giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has come up before this Court, with this writ petition.

The main gravamen expressed on the side of the petitioner is that the third respondent has passed the impugned order without giving due opportunity to the petitioner and also without knowing the filing of civil suits.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the fourth respondent has suppressed the pendency of civil dispute and the impugned order has been passed after five years without giving due opportunity to the petitioner and therefore the impugned order passed by the third respondent is liable to be quashed.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 submitted that the third respondent after considering the documents submitted on the side of the respondents 4 to 8, has rightly passed the impugned order and therefore the impugned order does not call for any interference.

Admittedly, the impugned order came to be passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner. On this ground alone, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is quashed, with the direction to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders after affording due opportunity to the parties concerned, in the light of the decision rendered by the Civil Court as well as other documentary evidence and on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.