Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 422 (MAD)

S. Nirmala Devi v. N. Madhava Rao

2022-02-16

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 19.01.2022 made in W.P.No.24720 of 2021. 1. The writ appeal has been maintained against the judgment dated 19.1.2022, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner/non-appellant was allowed. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging the issuance of joint patta in favour of respondents 7 and 8 in the writ petition, without adhering to the procedure contemplated under law. The appellant and the eight respondent in the writ petition were served with a notice. They chose not to file a counter-affidavit and contest the writ petition, accordingly, they did not raise any objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. 3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petition in the light of Sections 12 and 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. It is submitted that remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner/non-appellant and, therefore, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 4. The only issue raised by the appellant to challenge the judgment is qua the maintainability of the writ petition when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner/non-appellant. 5. In view of the said submission, this court shall at the outset deal with the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition due to availability of alternative remedy. The objection aforesaid does not always deserve to be accepted for rejection of the writ petition. Rather, in a given case, despite availability of alternative remedy, writ petition would be maintainable. In the present case, the facts itself show that the writ petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is for the reason that patta for the land in Survey No.140/4B1 admeasuring 29 cents was in the name of the petitioner/non-appellant. The seventh and eighth respondents in the writ petition made an application to enter their names. Without putting the petitioner/ non-appellant on notice and even causing an enquiry by the authority, a direction for joint patta was given. The order aforesaid was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without following the procedure contemplated under law. The seventh and eighth respondents in the writ petition made an application to enter their names. Without putting the petitioner/ non-appellant on notice and even causing an enquiry by the authority, a direction for joint patta was given. The order aforesaid was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without following the procedure contemplated under law. In such cases, even the availability of alternative remedy cannot be taken as a ground to dismiss the writ petition, rather it can be entertained when there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice. 6. In view of the above, it was held that the action of the respondent authorities in entering the names of the appellant and others as joint patta-holders without following the procedure was grossly illegal. The learned Single Judge has rightly interfered in the order. It is after referring the fact that the seventh respondent in the writ petition has otherwise filed a suit for partition as against the petitioner/non-appellant in C.S.No.730 of 2019, where the application filed seeking an order of injunction was dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, finding no substance in the appeal to challenge the judgment, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.1892 of 2022 is closed.