Natural justice mandates notice before cancellation of land records, and disputes over adoption and heirship must be resolved in civil court, not by revenue authorities.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent allowing the application filed by the respondents 5 to 7 seeking cancellation of patta transfer order issued in favour of 4^th respondent herein dated 02.08.2024 and subsequent patta transfer order dated 28.08.2024 and 04.09.2024, in favour of the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in S.No.42/2 in Kothankulam Village, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, with an extent of 4 acres 50 cents originally belonged to one Rajammal and the same was allotted to her in a final decree dated 19.09.1951 passed in O.S.No.11 of 1947 on the file of Sub Court, Sivagangai. The petitioner claims that the said Rajammal adopted 4^th respondent herein as her son and she died on 14.12.1986, leaving behind the 4^th respondent herein as her sole heir. The revenue records in the name of Rajammal was mutated in favour of 4^th respondent by an order passed by Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thiruppuvanam, dated 02.08.2024. The petitioner along with two others purchased the subject property from 4^th respondent under registered sale deed dated 20.08.2024. Based on the said document patta was again mutated in favour of the petitioner and two other co-purchasers as per the order passed by Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thiruppuvanam dated

28.08.2024.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents 5 to 7 claiming themselves as relatives of husband of Rajammal made claim over the property and submitted a representation before the second respondent, seeking cancellation of pattas issued in favour of 4^th respondent and petitioner. The second respondent, without issuing notice to the petitioner and two other purchasers, conducted an enquiry by issuing notice to 4^th respondent alone and passed the impugned order, cancelling the mutation of revenue records in favour of 4^th respondent and the subsequent order in favour of the petitioner. By the impugned order, the second respondent also directed restoration of patta in the name of original owner Rajammal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that though the revenue records were mutated in favour of the petitioner and two other purchasers from the name of the 4^th respondent as early as on 28.08.2024, the impugned order was passed by the second respondent without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and other purchasers and hence, there is a violation of natural justice principles. The learned counsel by also taking this Court to the impugned order passed by the second respondent submitted that the 2^nd respondent after giving clear finding that respondents 5 to 7 failed to establish their right over the subject property and relegating them to move the civil Court, committed serious error in restoring the patta in the name of original owner, by cancelling the patta issued in the name of petitioner and the 4^th respondent. The learned counsel also submitted that though the patta transfer orders in favour of 4^th respondent and petitioner were passed on 02.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 respectively, the representation submitted by the respondents 5 to 7 were entertained beyond the period of limitation, even without condone delay petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent would submit that the petitioner's predecessor in title viz., the 4^th respondent claiming himself as an adopted son of original owner Rajammal and the said fact is seriously disputed by the