The impugned order cancelling the patta must be passed in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, and in compliance with principles of natural justice.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by respondent No.1 in cancelling the patta standing in the name of the petitioner.

2. It is the submission of the petitioner that the land measuring 0.44.5 acres (Punja Land) was registered in the name of his mother Unnamalai Ammal, and the property measuring 0.12.0 acres falling in S.No.130/10 was in the name of his father Vadivel Gounder.

3. The land was gifted to the petitioner by his mother, vide registered gift deed dated 10.1.2008. The mutation of land was also sanctioned in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner, all of a sudden, was served with the order regarding the change of patta. The translated copy of the order reads as under:

"The lands of an extent of 0.44.54 ars of punja land in Survey No.78/3 in the name of Tmt. Unnamali Ammal and the lands of an extent of 0.12.0 ars in Survey No.130/10 in the name of Vadivel Goundar in Sirunampoondi Village, Gingee Taluk which are all patta lands were registered in the name of Thiru. Sivasubramani, S/o. Vadivel Goundar by way of Gift deed dated 10.01.2008 in the office at Sub – Registrar, Gingee.

The person in whose name the above said lands were gifted gave a representation on 01.8.2011 for transfer of the patta in his name with regard to the above said lands and on that representation orders were passed in A5/822/1421 dated 04.8.2011 the Regional Deputy Thasildar 1, Gingee order and transfer of patta. Against the order of transfer of patta the President of Sirunampoondi Village by his letter dated 25.8.2011 had stated that the said property had been used as a burial ground for more than 25 years and in the said place a concrete road and also cremation platform have been erected he had also stated that the above said lands are not in the enjoyment of Tmt. Unnamalai Ammal and further the General Public had given a representation seeking for cancellation of transfer at patta and on that basis spot inspection was made on 06.9.2011 and the above said reasons have been found to be true and considering the welfare of people and also to avoid law and order problem the above said patta had been cancelled is and it is ordered to maintain the status quo the village accounts.

Signed

Tahsildar

Gingee

(Extracted as such)

4. Though the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing statutory appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, this Court can exercise writ jurisdiction, in view of the fact, that the impugned order is not only passed in violation of principles of natural justice but has also been passed in violation of provisions of Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, [hereinafter referred to "Act"] as respondent No.1 was bound to take proceedings for cancellation of patta by following the procedure under the Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the entries in Patta Pass Book can be modified either by following the procedure laid down under Section 10 or by filing an appeal. In this case, respondent No.1 has proceeded to change the entries in the Patta Pass Book, without following the procedures laid down under the Act, merely on the basis of the representation by some residents of the Village and without issuing any notice to the petitioner.

6. It is also submitted that the procedure, as laid down under Section 3 of the Act, was not followed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore is that, once the officer failed to exercise his power under the statute, then the order is not only illegal but is void.

7. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent State.

8. It is not disputed that before changing the entries in the Patta Pass Book, no notice was issued to the petitioner nor any proceedings under the Act were taken.

9. The stand of the respondent is, that the land in dispute was a burial ground, and that the petitioner had no title to said