A party without a legitimate interest in a matter is not entitled to notice regarding proceedings affecting that matter.

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 4^th 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 petitioner has given a representation on 05.06.2013 and thereafter approached this Court in the above writ petition. Therefore, the order passed in the writ petition will not stand in the way of the authorities, considering the subsequent order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 10723 of 2013, which specific reference to issue of patta in S.F.No.36/3H1B and S.F.No.36 /1 dated 04.07.2013.

5. The learned Government Advocate, Mr. S. Kameswaran, would further submit that the case of the petitioner that there is a cart track in survey No.32/5, 34/1B and 37 is incorrect, excepting for the existence of cart track in S.F.No.36/3. He would further submit that in line with the argument of the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, the lands in S.F.No.36 /3 were not in anyway connected in the order passed on 20.09.2015 by the second respondent, which pertained only to S.F.No. 36/3H1B and nothing to do with the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.9651 of 2013. Therefore, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner was not required to be put on notice, since the subject matter, which was under consideration in the impugned order, was pertaining only to S.F.No. 36/ 3H 1B and not the other survey numbers, in respect of which the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.9651 of 2013.

6. It is also further contended by the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent that the Panchayat Union without even regarding land acquisition proceedings, laid Thar road in the 4^th respondent's property in S.F. No.36/ 3H1 and subsequently, S.F.No.36/3H1 was further subdivided as S.F.No.36/3H1A and 36/3H1B and insofar as 11 cents in S.F.No.36/3H1A, patta has been mutated in the name of the 4^th respondent's father, in respect of the house portion of 15 cents in S.F.No. 36/3H 1B, the same was classified as vacant land under the Natham Resettlement and it is only in respect of the said wrong classification, the 4^th respondent moved this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10723 of 2013 and thereafter, the second respondent after conducting an enquiry, directed issuance of patta in respect of the survey No.36/3H1B to an extent of 464 square meters, excluding the Thar Road portion of 132 square meters. The learned counsel of the 4^th respondent would therefore submit that the petitioner is no way aggrieved by the said impugned order of the second respondent, which has been subsequently implemented by the 3^rd respondent.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

8. As rightly contended by the respondents, the case of the petitioner in the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9651 of 2013 was no doubt pertaining to a common path way, but in the writ petition, the petitioner has restricted his claim only to three survey numbers, which is not covering the subject survey No. 36/3H1.