Procedural fairness is essential in property disputes; authorities must adhere to legal mandates before altering land records, ensuring all parties have a chance to contest changes.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur, dated 23.09.2022 mutating the revenue records in the name of the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Board and to consequently, restore the revenue records in the name of the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are contending that the subject property that belonged to Karuppaiah Thevar, were included in the settlement land register of the year 1948, reflecting the said Karuppaiah Thevar's name. Subsequently the said Karuppaiah Thevar sold the subject property to C.Balasubramaniam in and by registered sale deed dated 28.07.1978 and pursuant to the said deed, the said C.Balasubramaniam also mutated patta and other revenue records in his name. The petitioners, after carrying out due diligence purchased the property from the said C.Balasubramaniam, in by the sale deed dated 30.11.2006, registered as document No. 45/2007. The revenue records were also mutated in the name of the petitioners and patta was also issued jointly in the name of the petitioners.

3. It is also the contention of the petitioners that one Ramasubbu, who is the seventh respondent, in order to settle the personal scores against the petitioners, filed several cases against the petitioners and in all the litigation, the petitioners alone succeeded. After exhausting all avenues, according to the petitioners, the seventh respondent set up the eighth respondent to make a vexatious complaint as if the subject property belongs to the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Board. The revenue authorities, acting unilaterally and arbitrarily have mutated patta in the name of the Board, removing the names of the petitioners, without even issuing any notice to the petitioners or conducting any enquiry. The petitioners, therefore, have approached this Court challenging the said impugned order passed by the fifth respondent in and by proceedings dated 23.09.2022.

4. The sixth respondent has filed a counter contending that the petitioners had purchased Bhomidhana lands and after coming to know about the possession of Bhomidhana lands at the hands of the writ petitioners, the authorities proceeded to issue Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, notice to the petitioners to handover possession of the subject lands. The allegation of the suits being engineered by the respondents 7 and 8, colluding with the officials is denied. It is further contended that the subject lands were also surveyed in the presence of the petitioners and the patta was rightly mutated in favour of Bhomidhana Board. It is also contended that the property was originally donated by one N.P.S.S.Nataraja Nadar for the welfare of landless poor and the said Karuppaiah Thevar, under whom the petitioners claim right did not have any title to the subject lands. The writ petition is therefore, sought to be dismissed, in view of Section 11 of the TAMIL NADU BHOODAN YAGNA ACT , 1958, which mandates that all lands donated for the purpose of Bhoodan, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, will have to be confirmed, registered and mutation of patta has to take place in favour of the Board. Therefore, according to the official respondents, only in order to protect the land till the completion of the formation, the revenue records alone have mutated. Further, Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 notice was issued to the petitioners only to show cause and the petitioners have rushed to the Court taking advantage of procedural laps