The competent authority must conduct a fair enquiry with notice and opportunity to all parties before cancelling or modifying a patta, and appellate authority oversees such changes; prior patta grants cannot be cancelled without due procedure and evidence.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent dated 29.03.2023 cancelling the patta standing in the name of the petitioners with respect to the subject property and for a consequential direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to restore the patta issued in favour of the petitioners in Patta Nos.3337 and 3338 with respect to the subject property as per the earlier order passed by the 4^th respondent dated 22.07.2009.

2. Heard Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.M.Karthikeyan for Respondents 5 and 6.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they along with others had sought for a patta with respect to the subject property without insisting for a No objection certificate from the concerned authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act . A writ petition came to be filed in WP No.1919 etc., 2008. This writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 20.08.2008 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder :-

6. In my considered opinion, unless the order of the learned single Judge passed in the batch of writ petitions is stayed or set aside, the third respondent is bound by the same. It may be true that the Government is considering the question of preferring appeal against the said order; that will not amount to grant of stay of the order of the learned single Judge. The next contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the proper authority to direct the Tahsildar to issue patta is the first respondent also cannot be accepted. The Tahsildar is the competent authority to issue patta in the name of a person, who is the owner of the property. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that since the lands were taken over by the Government under the said Act, it is for the first respondent to give proper instructions to the Tahsildar to Issue patta is not correct. In this case, since the order taking over the lands has been quashed by this Court, there is no need for the first respondent to give any instructions to the Tahsildar. It is for the third respondent to consider the request of the petitioners to ascertain whether the petitioners are the owners of the property and whether they are entitled for patta or not and to pass orders.

7. In view of the above position, the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the third respondent to consider the request of the petitioners to issue patta and to pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The third respondent shall hold appropriate enquiry to ascertain the ownership of the lands after due notice and affording sufficient opportunity to all the interested persons concerned in the matter. It is made clear that for any reason in future, if the order of the learned single Judge in the batch of writ petitions is set aside, there may be no impediment for the third respondent Tahsildar to cancel any order issuing patta in the name of the petitioners. This order also will not preclude the Government from challenging the order of the learned single Judge passed in the batch of writ petitions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

4. Pursuant to the above order, the 4^th respondent through proceedings dated 22.07.2009 issued patta in favour of the petitioners in Patta Nos.3337 and 3338 with respect to the land in Survey No.82/3 (old Survey No.49/4) Noombal Village, Poonamalle taluk, Thiruvallur District.

5. The further case of the petitioners is that the su