The court emphasized adherence to procedural requirements under the Patta Passbook Act, particularly the need for notice and opportunity for all parties before modifying patta entries.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 14.05.2024.

2. Initially, the petitioner sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to cancel the patta in the name of the respondents 5 to 7 and to consequently, restore patta in the petitioner's name. However, pending the writ petition, W.M.P.(MD)No. 19089 of 2024 has been filed seeking to amend the relief and the said application was allowed by this Court by order dated 22.01.2025. Thereby, now, the writ petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 14.05.2024.

3. I have heard Mr.J.Bharathan for Mr.M.Maharajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.M.Rajendran, learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7.

4. The case of the petitioner is that without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, patta transfer order has been passed in and by an order dated 14.05.2024. It is further contended that the application for patta transfer itself was made on 13.05.2024, on the very next day (i.e., on 14.05.2024), hastily the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner's case is that in respect of the subject lands, patta No.1404 was issued in the name of the petitioner, even as early as in the year 2001. According to the petitioner, the properties originally belonged to his father, Ponnuchamy and after the demise of his father on 10.02.1998, the petitioner has got all his sisters' married and considering the petitioner's sacrifice to the family, his sisters had relinquished their shares in the said property. Only, thereafter, the patta came to be issued in the name of the petitioner, that too after enquiry conducted by the revenue authorities. However, after 23 years, the patta has been cancelled behind the back of the petitioner and the names of the respondents 5 to 7 have been included by the fourth respondent. The petitioner challenges the said order of the fourth respondent as being contrary to the provisions of the Patta Passbook Act and also in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.Bharathan, would submit that the fourth respondent was not even competent to decide the application as there were only three circumstances, under which entries in the patta passbook can be modified.

6. The learned counsel referring to Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act, would contend that the present case did not fall, in any of the three categories and therefore, the only remedy that would have been open to the respondents 5 to 7 was to challenge the order of the Tahsildar, granting patta to the petitioner in the year 2001 and even such appellate remedy was only subject to limitation prescribed for preferring an appeal under Section 12, which is 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7, Mr.M.Rajendran, would deny the claims of the petitioner that he has taken care of the family and that his sisters had relinquished their shares. The learned counsel would also deny the claim of the petitioner that his sisters had consented for patta being mutated in the name of the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner obtained patta fraudulently and also proceeded to alienate many items of property, despite the respondents 5 to 7 having a right in the said property.

8. According to the respondents 5 to 7, even on 09.09.2023, an application was made for including their names in the patta and the allegation of the petitioner that the application was made on 13.05.2024 and hastily on the very next day (i.e., on 14.05.2024) an order came to be passed is stoutly denied. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner being a Police Constable has taken advantage of his position and influenced authorities to obtain patta in his name. It is also contended