The principle of natural justice must be upheld in administrative decisions, and a comprehensive enquiry is necessary before cancelling rights or certificates.

The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order, dated 16.06.2006, passed by the first respondent, whereby and whereunder he has cancelled the enjoyment certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:

According to the petitioner, from 2005 he has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the landed property, comprised in Survey No.52 of Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, measuring an extent of 9231 sq.ft. The said land has been termed as “Gramanatham”. He had applied for enjoyment certificate before the first respondent. By order, dated 10.10.2005, the first respondent had certified that the petitioner has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. The procedure for issuance of enjoyment certificate has been prescribed in Rule 15 of the Village Administrative Officers and Citizen Procedural Rules. In respect of Gramanatham property, the procedure adopted by the first respondent for issuance of enjoyment certificate is that the person, who wants enjoyment certificate, should apply for the same and the first respondent would conduct a detailed enquiry and the Village Administrative Officer would conduct an inspection. After the Village Administrative Officer is satisfied that the person, who applied for enjoyment certificate, is in absolute possession, he would furnish a report to the first respondent. Before that, the Village Administrative Officer has to exhibit the same under Form-23A in the Village for a period of fifteen days. Only after that, such a report would be sent to the first respondent.

3. The petitioner has further submitted that after such a detailed verification, the first respondent had issued the enjoyment certificate, dated 10.10.2005. Subsequently, on 15.10.2005, he had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Ravisankar, empowering him to promote the said property, after receiving consideration and in turn Ravisankar had applied for planning permission and approached the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority for further details with regard to development of the said property. One Subash Chandra, who is the husband of third respondent and holding a prominent post in C.M.D.A. seemed to have influenced Ravisankar and informed that the enjoyment certificate is a forged one and that the petitioner herein has no control over the said property and the third respondent has purchased the said property from a third party and she has claimed ownership of the said property. In the document of the third respondent itself, it has been clearly stated that the land in question is an agricultural land, whereas in the document of the petitioner it has been stated that the land in question is a Gramanatham land, which is in conformity with the revenue records of the first respondent.

4. Further, the petitioner has submitted that believing the words of the third respondent, Ravisankar gave a false complaint, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and the learned Judicial Magistrate had referred the complaint to the second respondent, who had registered a case against the petitioner and four others under Sections 465, 468 and 471 r/w 120(b) I.P.C. However, he had settled the matter with the consent of Ravisankar and he had cancelled the Power of Attorney also. In the meanwhile, the first respondent, believing the report of the second respondent, passed the impugned order, dated 16.06.2006, and cancelled the enjoyment certificate issued on 10.10.2005, without conducting any enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed this writ petition.

5. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that at the outset the writ petition is not maintainable. The impugned order has rightly been passed by the first respondent since neither the petitioner nor his vendor was in possession of the land in question. The subject land has absolutely been