The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the Revenue Divisional Officer's decision to cancel the patta granted to the petitioner and grant it to the third respondent based on fraudulent land transactions and non-prejudicial non-production of the application by the third respondent.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, after calling for the records from the first respondent dated nil.07.2021 passed in Na.Ka.No.886/2016/A1 and quash the same.)

1. The writ on hand has been instituted to quash the order passed by the first respondent in proceedings dated nil.07.2021, directing the Revenue Authorities to cancel the patta granted in favour of the writ petitioner-Company and to grant patta in favour of Tmt.Annalakshmi and Mr.Natesan.

2. The petitioner is a Cement Company purchased certain extent of lands by way of various Sale Deeds and through Government leases. The total extent of the Plant is 28 Acres and 85 Cents. The petitioner-Company states that they are in possession of the subject property and had mutated the revenue records in their name.

3. The petitioner-Company has established Grinding Unit in the entire extent, which is under dispute before the respondents 1 and 2, had been purchased by the petitioner-Company from Mr.S.Durai and others viz., Tmt.Nagammal, Tmt.Parvathyammal and Mr.Natesan.

4. During the year 2013, the third respondent Mr.Ulaganathan filed a petition before the second respondent claiming to be the title holder of the portion of the property under occupation of the petitioner herein. The second respondent made recommendation stating that the petitioner- Company has purchased an extent of 0.32 cents excess from one of the vendor Tmt.Nagammal and accordingly patta to that extent was directed to be cancelled.

5. In the year 2013, the first respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer sent a notice stating that the petitioner-Company has to attend a hearing based on the recommendation passed by the second respondent. The petitioner-Company attended the hearing and the first respondent asked the petitioner-Company to file counter to the petition filed by the third respondent-Mr.Ulaganathan.

6. The petitioner-Company, vide letter dated 06.05.2013 addressed to the first respondent, has requested to furnish certain documents. Several hearings were conducted and the petitioner-Company''s Representative along with the counsel for the petitioner attended the hearings. But the copy of the petition filed by the third respondent Mr.Ulaganathan has not been furnished to the petitioner-Company. However, the first respondent furnished documents relied on by the third respondent Mr.Ulaganathan. The petitioner-Company filed a response based on the orders passed by the second respondent-Tahsildar, but the copy of the petition filed by the third respondent was not furnished. The petitioner thereafter filed WP No.23776 of 2016 and this Court directed the first respondent therein to complete enquiry and pass orders on merits.

7. The first respondent issued notice of hearing and the petitioner-Company attended the hearings and the impugned order was passed cancelling the patta stood in the name of the petitioner-Company.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the copy of the complaint given by the third respondent Mr.Ulaganathan to cancel the patta was not even furnished to the petitioner-Company. The order of the third respondent passed in proceedings dated 15.04.2016 was not communicated to any person. The petitioner-Company was put to dark and unable to initiate any further action. However, in the year 2017, the first respondent has sent a communication to the second respondent and the Head Surveyor, Ponneri, directed the second respondent to furnish certain details with regard to Survey Field No.95. An action was subsequently taken through Assistant Director of Land Survey Department, Thiruvallur to survey the land and submit a report in a time bound manner. The said proceeding was sent to the petitioner-Company. An Officer who heard the submissions of the petitioner-Company one Mr.V.Muthusamy had not passed orders. The impugned order has been passed by one Mr.P.Selvam, Revenue Divisi