Where a petitioner is aware of a third party's competing claim and active possession of the property in dispute, failing to implead such a party before obtaining an judicial order constitutes a violation of natural justice, rendering that order liable to be set aside.

JUDGMENT :

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)No.920 of 2018 dated 01.10.2024.

2.The appellant herein is not a party in the writ proceedings/third party in this writ appeal. Originally, the first respondent/Kavitha has filed a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.920 of 2018 seeking to quash the proceedings dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Sub Collector, Palani.

3.It is the case of the writ petitioner that one P.R.Vengatachala Gounder owned a property to the extent of 17.40 acre punja land situated at S.No.250/1A, Alangiyam Village, Dharapuram Taluk. The aforesaid land had been acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 18(1) of Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 58/61 and notification was effected on 11.12.1985. Thereafter, the said land had been assigned to the father of the writ petitioner, namely Perumal, who had made requested payment and on 17.04.1995, the writ petitioner's father and others had obtained “F” patta in their favour. The writ petitioner and his family members were effectively doing the agricultural work in the aforesaid land. Due to the water scarcity, they could not continue to do the agricultural work in their respective land and they were involved in the work of cutting the seemai karuvelam trees in their land and sell it for their livelihood. Without issuing any notice to the writ petitioner and other interested persons, the Sub Collector, Palani passed the impugned order dated 10.03.2017 by cancelling the above said “F” patta.

4.The sole respondent in the writ petition has filed a counter affidavit stating that wherein it has been stated that as per condition No.8 of the “F” deed agreement, the land would vest in the name of the assignee after expiry of a period of 20 years from the date of assignment. The land assigned to the above assignees were demarked and possession of the land handed over to them on 06.11.1996 as per the condition 8 of “F” deed agreement that the land will vest absolutely in the name of the assignee after expiry of a period of 20 years from the date of assignment. Hence,the mutation of patta alone withheld for the expiry of the above period.

5.The learned Writ Court held that a perusal of deed of assignment dated 17.04.1995 and its condition does not anywhere reflect that the non-cultivation would result in the cancellation of patta. Further, held that Clause 8 would state that “on the payment of the value of the land, the same would vest absolutely on the assignee”. Since there is no violation of the conditions of assignment and the value having been paid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly the learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition with a direction to restore the patta back in the name of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the third party has preferred the present writ appeal, after obtaining leave before this Court.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the order of the learned Writ Court has to be set aside on the ground that the writ petitioner knowing well that the appellant is also claiming right on the property on the basis of his purchase, did not choose to implead the appellant as a party and has obtained an order behind the back of the appellant. The writ petitioner wantonly failed to implead the appellant as a party in the writ petition, even though the writ petitioner very well aware that the appellant as well as his predecessors in title are in possession and enjoyment of the subject matter of the