Advocates:
['M/S V BHIMAN', '', 'SASIKALA RAMADOSS', 'B PARTHIBAN', 'L P SHANMUGA SUNDARAM', '', 'AGP TAKES NOTICE', 'PVT NOTICE PERMITTED TO R', 'PROOF FILED', 'R THE PRESIDENT', 'SIRUNAMPOONDI PANCHAYAT']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 20.6.2012

Coram

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA

W.P.No.22631 of 2011

and

M.P.No.1 of 2011

S.P.Sivasubramanian .. Petitioner

.. Vs ..

1 THE TAHSILDAR

GINGEE

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

TINDIVANAM

3 THE PRESIDENT

SIRUNAMPOONDI PANCHAYAT ... Respondents

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a

Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent proceedings in Na. Ka.

No.A5/9959/2011 dated 6.9.2011 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Bhiman

For respondent : Mr.R.A.Senthil Vel

Government Advocate

- - - - -

O R D E R

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of

Certiorari, to quash the order passed by respondent No.1 in cancelling the patta standing in the

name of the petitioner.

2. It is the submission of the petitioner that the land measuring 0.44.5 acres (Punja Land) was

registered in the name of his mother Unnamalai Ammal, and the property measuring 0.12.0 acres

falling in S.No.130/10 was in the name of his father Vadivel Gounder.

3. The land was gifted to the petitioner by his mother, vide registered gift deed dated 10.1.2008. The

mutation of land was also sanctioned in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner, all of a sudden,

was served with the order regarding the change of patta. The translated copy of the order reads as

under:

"The lands of an extent of 0.44.54 ars of punja land in Survey No.78/3 in the name of Tmt.Unnamali

Ammal and the lands of an extent of 0.12.0 ars in Survey No.130/10 in the name of Vadivel Goundar

in Sirunampoondi Village, Gingee Taluk which are all patta lands were registered in the name of

Thiru.Sivasubramani, S/o. Vadivel Goundar by way of Gift deed dated 10.01.2008 in the office at Sub

Registrar, Gingee.

The person in whose name the above said lands were gifted gave a representation on 01.8.2011 for

transfer of the patta in his name with regard to the above said lands and on that representation

orders were passed in A5/822/1421 dated 04.8.2011 the Regional Deputy Thasildar 1, Gingee order

and transfer of patta. Against the order of transfer of patta the President of Sirunampoondi Village

by his letter dated 25.8.2011 had stated that the said property had been used as a burial ground for

more than 25 years and in the said place a concrete road and also cremation platform have been

erected he had also stated that the above said lands are not in the enjoyment of Tmt.Unnamalai

Ammal and further the General Public had given a representation seeking for cancellation of

transfer at patta and on that basis spot inspection was made on 06.9.2011 and the above said

reasons have been found to be true and considering the welfare of people and also to avoid law and

order problem the above said patta had been cancelled is and it is ordered to maintain the status

quo the village accounts.

Signed

Tahsildar

Gingee

(Extracted as such)

4. Though the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing statutory appeal, the learned counsel for

the petitioner contends that, this Court can exercise writ jurisdiction, in view of the fact, that the

impugned order is not only passed in violation of principles of natural justice but has also been

passed in violation of provisions of Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, [hereinafter referred to "Act"] as

respondent No.1 was bound to take proceedings for cancellation of patta by following the procedure

under the Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the entries in Patta Pass Book

can be modified either by following the procedure laid down under Section 10 or by filing an appeal.

In this case, respondent No.1 has proceeded to change the entries in the Patta Pass Book, without

following the procedures laid down under the Act, merely on the basis of the representation by some

residents of the Village and without issuing any notice to the petitioner.

6. It is als