VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2023 › High Court of Madras

Jeyapaul Velladurai v. The District Revenue Officer

ALLOWED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
24 August 2023
Bench
G.R.Swaminathanauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 8704/2015

Judgment

ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for R1 & R2.

¶2Patta in respect of the petition mentioned land stood in the name of the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 13.02.2014, it was cancelled. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai did not put the petitioner on notice before cancelling the patta. On this sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the first respondent. The first respondent shall hold a fresh enquiry. He will issue notice to all the stake holders and thereafter, final order on merits and in accordance with law will be passed. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

24.08.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi To

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

2.The Tahsildar, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. rmi

24.08.2023

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.08.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 4 of 2015 Jeyapaul Velladurai ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Tahsildar, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District. 3.V.Gurusamy 4.T.Thandilingam ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in impugned order in Pa.Mu.P4/11154/2013 dated 13.02.2014 on the file of 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional and in consequence direct the 2nd respondent not to mutate the revenue records based on the impugned order and for other consequential orders. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.N.GA.Nataraj Government Advocate for R1 & R2 : Mr.G.Gurusamy for R3

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.