w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Mermaid Properties Private Ltd., Rep by its Director, P. Ramachandran v/s State represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai & Others

    W.P. No. 13169 of 2018 & W.M.P. Nos. 15485 & 15486 of 2018
    Decided On, 19 February 2021
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
    For the Petitioner: M/s. P. Subba Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, V. Shanmugasundar, Spl.Govt.Pleader, R4, Karthikeyan, S. Joel, Advocates.


Judgment Text
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings dated 23.12.2016 under Reference Na.Ka.No.21375/2014/No.4, quash the same and direct the third respondent to conduct an enquiry in relation to the property.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated 23.12.2016 of the second respondent, whereby the second respondent has directed the third respondent to issue patta for the land owners in respect of the properties comprised in Survey Nos.136/1 and 136/2.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that without affording a fair hearing to the petitioner, the impugned proceedings has been passed by the second respondent. According to the petitioner, he is the exclusive owner of the lands comprised in Survey No.136/2. However, the same is disputed by the fourth respondent, who would submit that the fourth respondent lands are also included in the same Survey No.136/2.

3. Admittedly, no final orders have been passed by the second respondent under the impugned proceedings. Only in the nature of recommendation, the second respondent has directed the third respondent to issue patta for all the land owners in respect of the properties comprised in Survey Nos.136/1 and 136/2. The petitioner has raised the following grounds in this Writ Petition.

a) The second respondent did not give any opportunity to conduct enquiry relating to ownership and possession of the lands. According to him, the lands are in his possession.

b) Being owner of the lands, the second respondent ought to have called for enquiry having collected the papers from him.

c) The Revenue authorities miserably failed to appreciate the fact that the fourth respondent has not impleaded the petitioner-Company, who is a necessary party to the proceedings.

4. As seen from the aforementioned grounds, the petitioner has challenged the Writ Petition on the alleged violation of principles of natural justice by the third respondent. Admittedly, no final orders have been passed by the third respondent.

5. No prejudice will be caused to any of the respondents, if the petitioner is afforded a fair hearing along with other necessary parties including the fourth respondent before any final orders are passed by the third respondent.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the third respondent to afford a fair hearing to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent and permit them to raise their objections with regard to the issuance of patta for their respective properties and thereafter, pass final orders on merits in accordance with law, including g

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ranting the petitioner as well a the fourth respondent the right of personal hearing, within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
O R