Periyasamy v. The District Revenue Officer

O R D E R The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.C2/14718/2017 dated

27.05.2026 and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry in Na.Ka.No.C2/14718/2017 by affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings.

¶2The contention of the petitioner is that notice was issued with regard to the enquiry. But the petitioner sought an adjournment, without granting the same, the first respondent passed the impugned order on the very same day. Therefore, the petitioner could neither submit the relevant records nor participate effectively in the enquiry. Hence, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶3This Court, after considering the said submissions, is also of the considered opinion that the first respondent ought to have granted one Page No. 2 of 5 more opportunity to the petitioner to make his submissions. Without granting the same, the impugned order passed by the first respondent would clearly amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.05.2026 passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.C2/14718/2017 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh enquiry.

¶4The first respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as to the third and fourth respondents. Notice shall also be issued to Muruganantham, Anandavalli, Sivanantham, Anandhi, Sumathi and any other objectors. Thereafter, the first respondent shall conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶5In case any party is seeking further opportunity, an adjournment may be granted. However, such adjournment shall not be granted on more than three occasions. Accordingly, the opportunity shall be limited to three hearings. The petitioner shall be present on the date of hearing either in person or through counsel, without fail. Page No. 3 of 5

¶6With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

22.06.2026 JEN Index: Yes / No To

1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2.The Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District. Page No. 4 of 5 S.SRIMATHY

, J.

JEN

22.06.2026 Page No. 5 of 5

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Periyasamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District. 3.Solomon 4.Devakrishnakumar ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No. C2/14718/2017 dated 27.05.2026 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct re-enquiry and provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings in Na.Ka.No.C2/14718/2017. Page No. 1 of 5 For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sivakumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.I.Pinaygash Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu *****