W.A.(MD) No. 166 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 23.02.2023

Pronounced on : 28.07.2023

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

W.A. (MD) No. 166 of 2023

P.Ravichandran

… Appellant

-vs-

1. Sasikala

2. Kanagavalli

3. Manickavalli

4. The Revenue Division Officer

Devakottai

Sivagangai District.

5. The Tahsildar

Thiruppathur Taluk

Sivagangai District.

... Respondents

Prayer:- Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated

04.07.2022 passed in W.P.(MD) No. 13532 of 2012 by the learned Single

Judge.

For Appellant

:

Dr. D.Gnanasekaran

For Respondents

:

Mr. M.Mahaboob Athiff (for R1)

Mr. P.T.Thiraviyam

Government Advocate (for R4 & R5)

____________

Page 1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD) No. 166 of 2023

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.)

Heard Dr. D.Gnanasekaran, Learned Counsel for the Appellant,

Mr. M.Mahaboob Athiff, Learned Counsel for the First Respondent and

Mr. P.T.Thiraviyam, Learned Counsel for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents

and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the

parties.

2.

This intra court appeal invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865,

has been preferred against the order dated 04.07.2022 in W.P (MD) No. 13532

of 2012 passed by the Learned Judge of the Court. The parties are hereinafter

referred to as per their description in the Writ Petition for clarity and

convenience.

3.

The Petitioners had been granted natham patta in respect of the land to an

extent of 0.00.90, 0.00.84 and 0.00.85 sq.mtrs/hectares in their occupation in

S. Nos. 134/24, 134/26 and 134/25 respectively in Thiruvudayarpatti Village,

Sivagangai District, but the same had been cancelled by the First Respondent in

the Proceedings in PaMu. A3-3603-2012 dated 24.07.2012 at the instance of

____________

Page 2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD) No. 166 of 2023

the Third Respondent, who is the President of the Panchayat Union within

whose limits the said properties fall. The Writ Court by order dated 04.07.2022

in W.P (MD) No. 13532 of 2012 examined the challenge made to the

cancellation of patta and found the decision making process to be in violation

of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Petitioners had not been

heard. In such circumstances, the impugned order was set aside with an

observation that if the authorities feel that the land is required for any public

purpose, they can approach the Government for appropriate relief. The Third

Respondent, who is aggrieved by that order, has preferred this appeal.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent strenuously canvassed that

the grant of the patta to the Petitioners was itself wrongful and the First

Respondent had rightly cancelled it on receipt of the complaint made by the

Third Respondent and in such circumstances, there was no necessity for

interference of the order of cancellation of patta by the Writ Court. In response,

the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the order passed by the Writ

Court was perfectly justified and the claim of the Third Respondent to the

contrary is without any substance whatsoever.

____________

Page 3 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD) No. 166 of 2023

5.

We have carefully examined the rival contention of the Learned Counsel

for the Petitioner and Respondents. It is trite law that any administrative action

which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of

natural justice, meaning thereby that the person concerned must be informed of

the case with supporting evidence against him and he must be given a fair

opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken as held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Orissa -vs- Bina