The court emphasized that any order impacting rights must adhere to the principles of natural justice, requiring a fair hearing before issuance.

ORDER :

These Writ Petitions, considering the fact that, it is between same parties and also concerning connected issues, are taken up together, with the consent of the learned Counsel on both sides.

2. The Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26216 of 2023, has sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer Pa.Mu.No.516/2023/A3 dated 20.07.2023, which is an appeal petition filed by the third respondent, seeking to cancel the patta in the name of the petitioner. The third respondent's appeal was listed for enquiry on 18.07.2023 and on receipt of the enquiry notice dated 11.07.2023, the writ petitioner has appeared before the first respondent on the said date namely 18.07.2023 and has also made a written request for copies of the appeal papers to be furnished to the petitioner.

3. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that on 18.07.2023, the first respondent was not in station and the presence of the petitioner was marked by the subordinate officer of the first respondent and the petitioner was told that he would be informed about the next hearing date. While so, within a span of two days on 20.07.2023, without even furnishing the relevant copies of the documents filed by the third respondent and other necessary papers, the first respondent has hastily passed an order. The primordial attack to the order of the first respondent is that, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice, which is clearly depriving the right of the writ petitioner in meeting the contentions of the third respondent.

4. I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

5. The learned Counsel for the third respondent, on other hand, submits that the petitioner has no locus standi, to even file the present writ petition, since the third respondent was only challenging the issuance of patta to one Prithviraj, from whom the petitioner has purchased the property and therefore, would submit that the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order passed by the first respondent.

6. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned Counsel on either side.

7. Insofar as W.P.(MD)No.3219 of 2023, the grievance of the petitioner is that he had sought for survey of his lands in S.No. 282 at Thummakkundu Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District and had also made necessary applications. However, survey was not conducted and hence, the petitioner seeks survey to be conducted based on his application dated 31.01.2023.

8. The official respondents have filed a counter, stating that the subject lands are in the possession of the third respondent and there are also civil suits pending and therefore, survey cannot be conducted based on the petitioner's application.

9. Insofar as the impugned order passed which is under challenge in W.P.(MD)No.26216 of 2023, it is seen that the petitioner was specifically served with the enquiry notice apart from the notice marked to his vendor Pritiviraj and was called upon to attend the enquiry. Therefore, I am unable to countenance the submission of the learned Counsel for the third respondent that the petitioner has no locus standi. Therefore, the said contention is rejected.

10. With regard to the impugned order, when the petitioner had made a written request for relevant copies being furnished and on 18.07.2023, when the first respondent was away from the office and the request of the petitioner was received by his subordinate, the first respondent ought not to have proceeded to pass the impugned order, within a span of two days namely 20.07.2023, admittedly, without even hear