The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for quasi-judicial and administrative orders to adhere to the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule that the person who hears must also decide, to ensure a fair and just decision-making process.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings No.A6/MRI 7/M dated 07.04.2005 and A6/MRI 7/M/thirko dated 17.07.2006 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.42A and quash the same.)

1. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition pertains to the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 07.04.2005 and the consequent publication made in the Government Gazette on 17.07.2006.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the properties were jointly owned and the father of the petitioner was the kartha of the joint family. A registered Deed of Partition came to be executed on 30.03.1960 and whatever share was allotted in favour of the father, was settled in favour of Linga Reddy and Desu Reddy under a registered Settlement Deed dated 05.01.1970. By virtue of this Settlement Deed, the petitioners are claiming to be the absolute owners of the subject property.

3. An enquiry was conducted and the authorities came to a conclusion that the lands held by the father attracted the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as "Act") and he had settled the property only to defeat the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, an order was passed under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act on 26.12.1991, declaring an extent of 12.56 Standard Acres of land as surplus. This order was also served on the mother. As against the said order, the mother filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal, Tanjavur. In the meantime, a draft statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 13.05.1992 and the same was also served on the mother. She gave her objections under Section 10(5) of the Act on 20.10.1992.

4. The Land Tribunal through its order dated 29.12.1993, dismissed the appeal with an observation that the order has been passed only under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act and that the owner of the land is always at liberty to seek redressal in the subsequent proceedings by producing relevant materials to support their claim.

5. Pursuant to the above orders, notices were issued to the mother to appear before the concerned authority. In one such enquiry, the mother's brother appeared and stated that his sister is taking treatment in the hospital. Thereafter, a draft order was passed under Section 10(5) of the Act on 07.04.2005 and this was informed to the petitioners through a covering letter dated 30.01.2006. Thereafter, it was also published in the Government Gazette on 17.07.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

6. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:

6) It is further submitted that as per the directions of the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur fresh enquiry has conducted u/s 10 (5) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram. The averments made in paras 6 & 7 of the Affidavit to the effect that repeated representations were made by the petitioners are contrary to the fact. After the receipt of the Tribunal order, a notice dt. 28.2.94 was issued to the parties to appear for enquiry on 15.3.94, through the Special Revenue Inspector (Land Reforms) for service. The Special Revenue Inspector reported that the notice could not be served on them as the parties were reported to have left the village for treatment to outer station. Another notice was issued on 28.03.1994 to appear on 04.04.1994 for which Tmt.Desiammal's brother one A. Narayanaswami, S/o. AbbaiReddiar filed a petition stating that Desiammal was taking treatment in the hospital for the past one month and that another date may be fixed. The draft order u/s. 10 (5) of the Act was sent to Desiammal by RPAD No.1335/11.05.2005, but it was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement to the effect