The court emphasizes the necessity of fair opportunity for all parties in property claims and dismisses petitions based on delay and re-litigation principles.

ORDER :

(P.B. BALAJI, J.)

The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.20642 and 20643 of 2022 challenges the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.B4-18413-2022 and Na.Ka.B4-18912-2022 respectively, dated 05.07.2022

2. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023 challenges the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.P1-36545-2005 dated 25.09.2008 and to consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to cancel the patta of the sixth respondent, which is granted in survey No.64-5 and extent of 1.50.0 Hectare situated at Thiruthipatti Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

3. I have heard Mr.T.Veerakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.20642 & 20643 of 2022 and M/s.S.Latha, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent W.P. (MD)Nos.20642 & 20643 of 2022 and Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023 and Mr.G.Praburajadurai, learned counsel for the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.20643 of 2022 and AV.Rajendran, learned counsel for the sixth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023. I have gone through the records and also considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

4. Insofar as the two writ petitions in W.P.(MD)No.20642 and 20643 of 2022 are concerned, the petitioner only challenges the enquiry notice issued by the District Revenue Officer, viz., first respondent on an application taken out by the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.20642 of 2022 and the respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.(MD)No.20643 of 2022.

5. The case of the petitioner in these writ petitions is that the petitioners and the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.20642 of 2022 and respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.(MD)No.20643 of 2022 are re-agitating an issue which has already attained finality and clearly amounts to case of re-litigation and therefore, the petitioner in these writ petitions is entitled to seek the enquiry notices to be quashed.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would take me through the various documents, including the earlier order passed by the first respondent, who has now taken up enquiry afresh and contend that the very same issues that have been raised by the second respondent in W.P. (MD)No.20642 of 2022 and respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.(MD)No.20643 of 2022, have already been elaborately dealt with and considered by the first respondent and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would be an exercise in futility to over and again go into the very same frivolous objections of the private respondents. However, Mr.Prabu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that the proceedings that had been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner were all relating to a different family altogether and at no point of time, the petitioner or the petitioner's family were heard and therefore he would submit that the order that may have attained finality according to the writ petitioner, would not bind the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.20642 of 2023. The learned counsel would further submit that the private respondents have to be given fair opportunity to put forth their claim and without hearing, then the proceedings have been passed behind her back and therefore, the application of the petitioner to conduct property enquiry and decide entitlement of patta should be undertaken, necessarily. He would therefore submit that the petitioner has hastily approached this Court challenging the enquiry notice itself. He would therefore pray for dismissal fo the writ petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No366 of 2023 would submit that the District Revenue Officer has passed an order on 23.09.2008 in Na.Ka.No.P1-36545-2005 and the same is challenged in the present writ petition. He would submit that the lands belonged to the petitioner's grandfather, viz., Udaiyappan Ambalam and even SLR patta was mutate