1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10/06/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD) No.105 of 2011 Pitchammal ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Revenue Fort St. George,Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Pudukottai. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai. 4.The Tahsildar Pudukottai. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pursuant to the impugned order of the second respondent dated 06.10.2010 in Na.Ka.No.18230/2009/E2 and quash the same and consequently directing the second respondent to grant patta to the petitioner for her land extending to 00235.0 sq. mt. (equaling about 6 cents) in the year 1976, comprised in T.S.No.6085/3 now sub divided as 6085/68 at Kavinadu Melavattam Village, Pudukottai Town in the light of G.O.Ms.no.400 Public Works department dated 04.07.1997 and the report of the Revenue Inspector, March 2010. For petitioner ...Mr.G.Arockiasamy For Respondents ...Mr.B.Pugalendhi Spl. Govt. Pleader ORDER Challenging the impugned proceeding of the second respondent dated 06.10.2010 rejecting the request of the petitioner to grant patta and consequently directing the second respondent to grant patta to the petitioner for her land in T.S.No.6085/3 now sub divided as 6085/68 at Kavinadu Melavattam Village, Pudukottai Town, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is in possession of the land in question for more than 30 years and entitled for a patta. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.400 Public Works department, dated 04.07.1997, de-listed the 'kattu pudukulam kanmai' from the list of water bodies and hence, the contention of the respondents is that the property for which the petitioner seeks patta is a kanmai, cannot be accepted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the second respondent has passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner. This Court on an earlier occasion in W.P.(MD) No.5047 of 2010, filed by the petitioner, by an order dated 28.06.2010 directed the second respondent herein to consider the report of the Tahsildar regarding the claim of the petitioner. Paragraph Nos.2 to 6 of the said order is extracted hereunder: “2. The petitioner claims that she is the only second class heir of the said V.Srinivasan, surviving on his death. The said V.Srinivasan applied for grant of patta with respect to a portion of the property in his occupation. The said property was originally a Tank Poramboke. Now, the Government has abandoned the irrigation source of the said Tank. The third respondent having acted upon the representation submitted by the petitioner on the demise of her brother, sought for a report from the Revenue Inspector wayback on 04.01.2010. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Revenue Inspector had already submitted a report as called for by the third respondent. But, the third respondent had not made any recommendation to the first respondent based on the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector. 4. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that it is not within the domain of the third respondent/Tahsildar, Pudukkottai to reclassify the lands. Reclassification would be done only by the first respondent/District Collector and the plea for the issuance of patta could be considered only thereafter. 5. The proceedings issued by the third respondent on 04.01.2010 would go to show that a direction had flowed from him to the Revenue Inspector to make an enquiry and to submit a report. Now, it is the submission of the petitioner that a report had already been submitted by the Revenue Inspector to the third respondent. The third respondent is bound to act upon the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector along with recommendations, if any. The first respondent shall act upon it and pass appropriate orders. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. In view of the above, the third respondent is directed to submit his report with recommendations, if any, to the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the first respondent shall consider the said report and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such report with recommendations, if any, from the third respondent.” Thereafter basing on the report, the impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent. However, it seems that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner. Had the opportunity been given to the petitioner, the petitioner would have explained about the real position. Interest of justice requires an opportunity to be given to the petitioner for passing any orders. Though on an earlier occasion in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court did not afford any such opportunity, I am of the considered view that since an adverse order has been passed against the petitioner, an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to explain her case. Taking into account the said aspect, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent dated 06.10.2010 and remand the matter to the second respondent to pass orders afresh, after hearing the petitioner. The Writ Petition stands allowed as indicated. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Department of Revenue,Fort St. George,Chennai. 2.The District Collector,Pudukottai. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Pudukottai. 4.The Tahsildar,Pudukottai. +1cc to Mr.G.Arockiasamy, Advocate SR.No.17885 W.P.(MD) No.105 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 10.06.2011 RR PA/14.06.2011/3P/6C(IT) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/