IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 04.08.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K. VASUKI W.P. No.12649 of 2009 1. P. Murugan 2. P. Sivakumar .. Petitioners vs 1. The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai 606 604 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai 3. The Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District 4. Shanmugam .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.M3/59947/2008 dated 12.06.2009 and to quash the same as illegal, null and void and to consequently direct the first respondent to conduct proper enquiry and to provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioners before disposing of the Review Application filed by the fourth respondent in accordance with law. For Petitioners : Mr. S. Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr. V. Viswanathan, AGP for R1 to R3 Mr. S. Dharmakkan for R4 O R D E R On consent the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The writ petition is filed against the order of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.M3/59947/2008 dated 12.06.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and to quash the same as illegal, null and void and to consequently direct the first respondent to conduct proper enquiry and to provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioners before disposing of the review application filed by the fourth respondent in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner's land which is the subject matter of this writ petition is measuring 2.14 acres comprised in S.No.28/7B (New Survey No.28/7B-1-0.76 Hectares) 1.89 Acres and 28/7A1-0.25 Acres (New Survey No.28/7A1A3-0.90.0 Hectar). The order which is impugned herein relates to transfer of patta in respect of the land in question. Admittedly the patta in respect of the land in question did not stand in the name of the fourth respondent before the order of the third respondent dated 08.07.2008 in his Proceedings No.G.1/20301/ 2007. The third respondent has under the proceedings above referred to ordered transfer of patta in the name of the fourth respondent on the strength of the sale deed standing in his name on 26.07.2007. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner herein filed the statutory appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent has after holding enquiry in the presence of all the parties concerned set aside the order of the third respondent and ordered patta to be transferred in the name of the petitioners herein. Challenging the correctness of such order, the fourth respondent filed revision petition before the first respondent. The first respondent has on entertaining the revision issued notice to the petitioner thereby calling upon his representation and the fourth respondent and the petitioner has also in compliance with such notice submitted their written representation on 11.04.2009 and revision petition is allowed by cancelling the order of the second respondent thereby restoring the patta in the name of the fourth respondent which is now seriously challenged in this writ petition. 4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised various grounds against the legality of the impugned order of the first respondent, the main ground on which it is questioned is that it is passed on the basis of the statement obtained from the witnesses recorded without notice to and in the absence of the petitioners and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to know the contents of the statement and to cross examine the witnesses from whom the statements are recorded. That the first respondent has not only recorded the statement of the persons above referred to behind the back of the parties but also relied upon the same without allowing the contents of the same known to the petitioners which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice which in turn renders the impugned order of the first respondent to be illegal and vitiated and cannot be allowed to stand and the matter be remanded back before the first respondent for fresh disposal and the first respondent may be directed to dispose of the matter on the basis of records already available without collecting any fresh evidence either oral or documentary in nature and in the event of the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent being not satisfied with the correctness of the order sought to be revised the revisional authority is then bound to remand it back to the original authority for fresh enquiry as per law and it is for the original authority to hold further enquiry by allowing the parties to let in further oral and documentary evidence, if any, in support of their respective contentions. 5. The petitioners have in support of such contention drawn the attention of this Court to the statements recorded from number of persons which are referred to in the reference column in the impugned order dated 12.06.2009. The reading of the same reveals that the first respondent authority has recorded the statement of 1. Thiru Shanmugam S/o. Manikkam, 2. Village Administrative Officer, 3. Tmt. Mahalakshmi, 4. Thiru Gopal and 5. Thiru Shanmugam on various dates between 16.02.2009 to 30.03.2009. The perusal of the file relating to the proceedings reveal that the same is no recorded in the presence of the petitioner. 6. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the relevant provision of law under Section 13 of the Tamil Naud Patta Pass Book Act which deals with the power of the revisional authority makes it clear that the revisional authority can on his own motion or the application of a party call for and examine the records of any appellate authority within its jurisdiction in respect of any proceeding under this Act and pass such orders as he may think fit and the authority is not authorised to conduct further enquiry by permitting additional materials to be produced. That being so, the action of the revisional authority in recording the statement from additional witnesses that too in the absence of the petitioners and in passing final order based upon the same amounts to excessive exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the same which renders the impugned order to be invalid in law. 7. In the result, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 12.06.2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on the basis of the available records in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioners and the fourth respondent for being heard and the first respondent is directed to dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible not later than 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vga https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai 606 604 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai 3. The Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc To Mr.S.Venkatesh, Advocate, SR.57199 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.57100 W.P. No.12649 of 2009 AKR (CO) RH (14.9.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/