Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2865 (MAD)

Vagitha Banu v. District Revenue Officer

2014-08-25

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order passed by the second respondent dated 22.10.2012 by which patta has been granted in respect of the property in question in favour of the fourth respondent. The primary ground on which the impugned order has been challenged is by contending that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to grant patta and if at all an application can be considered, it could be considered only by the third respondent. The second contention is that even assuming the second respondent has exercised his power by rectifying the defects in the patta already granted, then such an order could not be passed without notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner. 2. A perusal of the order dated 08.01.2013, it could be seen that this Court has granted interim stay and subsequently the stay was made absolute and it is in force. In the light of the factual and jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is able to succeed before this Court on this jurisdictional issue, then the factual issue need not be gone into and in order to ascertain as to whether notice has been issued to the petitioner before grant of patta, this Court examined the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. 3. On a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is seen that the second respondent would state that the claim of the petitioner is baseless based on certain documents and the reason assigned by the second respondent would go to the extend of stating that clandestinely and maliguantly settlement deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 13.09.2012 by Pathuru Jammal, the father of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that Pathuru Jammal has forged the documents and after the petitioner presented a petition before the second respondent on 04.11.2012, an enquiry was held along with the revenue records and the statement of the Village Administrative Officer was recorded and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. Conspicuously the very contention raised by the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of the second respondent and the contention that no notice was issued to the petitioner has been either denied or rebutted in the counter affidavit. Conspicuously the very contention raised by the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of the second respondent and the contention that no notice was issued to the petitioner has been either denied or rebutted in the counter affidavit. In the absence of specific denial, this Court is inclined to accept the contention raised by the petitioner stating that the impugned order has been passed without notice to the petitioner. But on this short ground, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. As observed earlier, the factual disputes raised by the parties namely the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent need not be gone into at this stage and those issues are left open. 4. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner, the fourth respondent and any other persons who are likely to be aggrieved and pass reasoned orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the necessary parties. It is open to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent to raise the matter regarding factual and legal aspects. Such order shall be passed by the second respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the second respondent stating that no order can be passed by the second respondent, this jurisdictional issue also should be considered by the second respondent. It is needless to state that the original authority, who is entitled to consider the claim for patta (then UDR), shall be the Tahsildar, the concerned authority. Unless and until an appeal is preferred as against the revenue entry, then alone the second respondent would have jurisdiction. Therefore, if an application is made by the fourth respondent at the instance, then the application should have been made to the third respondent and he alone would be entitled to consider the same. This aspect is to be borne in mind while considering the matter. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.