The central legal point established is that while the Director has the power to cancel patta suo moto, it is imperative to consider objections/explanations before passing adverse orders.

D. Murugesan, J.

This appeal is directed at the instance of Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement as against the Order in W.P.17082/2006 dated 14.07.2006 whereby the Writ Petition was allowed after quashing the order impugned in the writ petition.

2. The writ petition came to be filed on the ground that the respondent by name M. Arumugam and one Thiru.Srinivasan purchased an extent of 3.14 acres of land in Survey No.11 (part), Block No.4, T.S.No.2(part) situate in No.65, Kolathur Village, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai, from M/s. M.Subramani and S.Vasantha for a valuable consideration as per the registered sale deed dated 05.08.1981. In the year 1999, the Tahsildar, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk inspected the land and sent a report to the District Collector stating that the entire land is Inam Estate. As the respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the said land for more than 30 years, the lands were re-classified as Anatheenam, Eri Ulvoi. Hence on an application made by the respondent to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, patta was granted 29.06.2000 for an extent of 2.1 ½ cents of the land. The said patta was sought to be cancelled by the appellant/Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement by order dated 21.04.2006 invoking suo moto power under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulations, Estates and Inam Abolition and Ryotwari Settlement Act, 1948.

3. The said Order of the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement was questioned in the Writ Petition on two grounds namely that the Director of Survey and Settlement has no suo moto power under Section 5(2) of the Act to cancel the patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer and secondly, in any event show cause notice dated 21.09.2005 was issued by the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement calling upon the petitioner as to why the grant of patta should not be cancelled. The respondent was asked to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said show cause notice. The said show cause notice was received by the Respondent on 11.02.2006 and a reply was sent within 15 days i.e., on 20.02.2006. Though the said reply was acknowledged on 22.02.2006, the explanation has not been considered and in fact the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement has gone to the extent of denying the receipt of such reply.

4. The writ petition came to be dismissed following the judgment in "The Director of Survey and Settlement Vs. R.Ramadoss reported in 1992(2) LW 265 holding that the Director of Survey and Settlement has no suo moto power under Section 5(2), to revise the order of Settlement Officer.

5. The above order is questioned in this Writ Appeal by the state.

6. Mr. K. Balasubramanian, the learned Special Government Pleader has brought to our notice a judgment of a full bench of this court reported in 2007(4) CTC 538 wherein it has been held in The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement Vs. M. Arumugam has suo moto power. When this Writ Appeal was taken into consideration earlier, in view of the subsequent judgment of this Court in M. Veeraswamy Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration in 1996 WLR 554 holding that such power is available for the Director of Survey and Settlement, the Writ Appeal was referred to a larger bench for consideration. Ultimately a full bench of this court in the judgment reported in 2007 (4) CTC 538 has held that the judgment in Ramadoss case did not lay out correct law. Consequently the judgment in Veeraswamy’s case was approved. Hence the learned Government Pleader submitted that in view of the above said full bench judgment, the reasoning of the learned single judge is unsustainable and accordingly the Writ Appeal should be allowed.

7. We have heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel on the above submission of the learned Special Government