Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.B. Balaji, J
Pitchaimuthu – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Trichy – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The writ petitioner challenges the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.A2/1905/2015 dated 20.09.2015 mainly on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed.
2. I have heard M.R. Rajaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and Ms. J. Maria Roseline, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
3. It is the categorical case of the writ petitioner that he moved this Court in W.P.(MD)No.9651 of 2013 and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 03.07.2013, directed the Tashildar, viz., third respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation and despite the order in the writ petition, no opportunity was given. Therefore, he would submit that on this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be entertained and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that the subject matter of dispute in the writ petition filed by petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9651 of 2013 was pertaining to entirely different survey numbers, namely, 32/5, 34/1B and 37, in respect of which alone the pe
A party without a legitimate interest in a matter is not entitled to notice regarding proceedings affecting that matter.
The court emphasizes the necessity of fair opportunity for all parties in property claims and dismisses petitions based on delay and re-litigation principles.
Non-speaking orders rejecting patta claims must be quashed; reasons must be communicated, with fresh consideration after hearing.
The court emphasized that any order impacting rights must adhere to the principles of natural justice, requiring a fair hearing before issuance.
A writ petition requires inquiry under earlier court orders to ensure fairness in administrative decisions.
Writ court remands disputed patta issuance factual issues to revenue authorities for hearing, avoiding writ jurisdiction over facts.
Court affirmed the need for accurate administrative review and correlation in patta issuance based on updated survey records.
Writ courts cannot adjudicate title disputes when civil suit pending; revenue mutations do not confer title.
Court directs authorities to consider representations on land records and patta cancellation after hearing all parties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
