The impugned proceedings and the consequent order were found to be without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice, depriving the appellant of a fair opportunity to appear and object.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21935 of 2013 dated 03.02.2020.)

P. B. Balaji,

1. The unsuccessful Writ petitioner is the appellant before us.

2. The appellant filed W.P. No.21953 of 2013 seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 10.05.2012 and consequential order dated 02.08.2013 on the file of the 1st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri. The sum and substance of challenge to the said impugned proceedings as well as the consequential order was that the petitioner was not offered any opportunity and he had no notice of the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The further grievance of the petitioner was that he had purchased lands in question, from his vendors, who had directly purchased the same from the Burma Repatriates, for valid consideration. Therefore, the impugned proceedings as well as the order were vitiated and also in violation of principles of natural justice. Before the Writ court, no counter was filed by the statutory respondents. However, the 2nd respondent alone filed a counter claiming to be the Secretary of Nethaji Nagar, Burma Thamizhargal Munnetra Nala Sangam, Ponneri. The Writ petition was contested by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner had created false documents as if he has purchased 95 cents of land through Power Agents of his vendors, who, in turn, had allegedly purchased plots from the original Burma Repatriates. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has grabbed the lands by creating false documents. It is further contended that the petitioner was directed to appear before the District Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur for the offence of land grabbing indulged in, by the petitioner. According to the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notice to the petitioner and the petitioner also appeared on 5 hearings apart from submitting his reply and only thereafter, the proceedings dated 10.05.2012 and consequential order dated 02.08.2013 came to be passed. It is further contended that even a copy of the final order passed by the 1st respondent was sent to the Writ petitioner and therefore, the allegations made by the Writ petitioner in the affidavit in support of the Writ petition were all false and baseless. Under such circumstances, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the Writ petiiton.

3. Before the Writ Court, the respondents 2 to 4 were impleaded in and by order dated 16.01.2015. The stand of the impleaded third respondent was that the 3rd and 4th respondents were Burma repatriates (husband and wife) and according to them, Plot No.79 was allotted to the 3rd respondent and sale deed was also executed by the respondents 3 and 4 in her favour, duly registered in Doc. No.1146/1977 on the file of the Sub- Registrar, Ponneri and they have also sanctioned financial assistance for construction of a house. However, because of compelling circumstances, they moved to Chennai for their livelihood and taking advantage of their absence, several land grabbings were indulged in fabrication of records with a view to develop and deprive poor Burma repatriates including the respondents 3 and 4. According to the 3rd and 4th respondents, the Writ petitioner has formed fraudulent lay out and blocked the entry of the respondents 3 and 4 to their plot by erecting a compound wall by enclosing a portion of the land consisting of about 28 plots, not belonging to the Writ petitioner. It is also stated by the respondents 3 and 4 that the sale deeds in favour of land grabbers have been cancelled by the 1st respondent. It is also stated that though Criminal R.C. No.562 of 2012 was filed by the Writ petitioner challenging the Section 145 proceedings, the same was withdrawn on 14.08.2013. On the very same grounds, the Writ petitioner has chosen to approach this Writ Court and therefore, according to the respond