Writ court remands disputed patta issuance factual issues to revenue authorities for hearing, avoiding writ jurisdiction over facts.

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 herein to cancel the patta issued in favour of the 4th Respondent herein and to direct the respondents 1 to3 herein to restore the joint patta No. 401, in the name of the petitioners, for the land comprised in Survey NO. 91/1E1, and 91/1E2 Mavananthal Village, Melmalaiyanur Taluk, Villupuram District For Petitioner(s): Ms.R.Padmapriya For Respondent(s): Mr.T.K.Saravanan, AGP for R1 to 3 Mr.J.Bharathiraja, for R4

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the patta issued in favour of the 4^th respondent and to direct the respondents 1 to

3 herein to restore the joint patta No. 401, in the name of the petitioners.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in this case, initially, vide order dated 03.01.2019 passed in WP.No.29140 of 2017, this Court directed the official respondents to consider the 4^th respondent’s representation for surveying the subject property and issuance of patta after hearing the parties concerned. However, in contrary to the said order, the patta was issued in the name of 4^th respondent without any prior notice to the petitioners, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, this petition.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the official respondent would submit that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 03.01.2019, the survey was conducted at the subject land in presence of the petitioners and hence, he would contend that the petitioners had knowledge with regard to the issuance of patta to the 4^th respondent.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the survey was conducted in presence of the petitioners, no notice was issued to him prior to the issuance of patta in the name of 4^th respondent.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

6. In the case on hand, this Court, vide order dated 03.01.2019 in WP.No.29140 of 2017, directed the official respondents to consider the 4^th respondent’s representation for surveying the subject property and issuance of patta after hearing the parties concerned. In pursuant to the said order, the survey was conducted at the subject property in presence of the petitioners and thereafter, patta was issued in the name of 4^th respondent.

7. Now, the main grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the failure on the part of the official respondents in providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to the issuance of patta in the name of 4^th respondent. However, the said disputed question of fact has to be considered by the 2^nd respondent.

8. In such case, this Court directs the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the 2^nd respondent. Upon filing of such representation, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same and after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent, appropriate orders shall be passed, on merits and in accordance with law. Subsequently, if the petitioner is aggrieved over the order to be passed by the 2^nd respondent, he can very well challenge the same in the manner known to law.

9. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.