1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.1008 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 Mayilvel : Petitioner Vs 1. The District Revenue Officer Karur District 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Karur District 3. The Tahsildar Office of Tahsildar Karur District 4. Thiru A.Dharmaraj The Tahsildar Office of Tahsildar Karur District 5. Mr.Sivakumar : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the third respondent in ref. Na.Ka.A4/6660/2007, dated 9.11.2010 and quash the same, and consequently restore the joint patta in favour of the petitioner as per the order of the second respondent in ref.Na.Ka.A2/864/2010 dated 29.06.2010. For petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader For 4th Respondent: Mr.A.Dharmaraj For 5th Respondent: Mr.V.Balaji O R D E R The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition challenging the order of the Tahsildar, dated 09.11.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that originally the patta was transferred without notice to the petitioner. As against the same, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, after issuing notice to all the parties concerned, passed a detailed order granting patta in the name of the petitioner. Subsequent to the order, the Patta was transferred in the name of the petitioner, by virtue of order, dated 15.10.2010 and the same was in force, again the impugned order, dated 09.11.2010 is passed transfering the name to the fifth respondent without notice to the petitioner on the representation made by the fifth respondent that there was a injunction suit filed by him against the petitioner and in that, ex-parte decree was passed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further contend that against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the fifth respondent has already filed an Appeal before the District Revenue Officer and the same is pending and there is no interim order in that. He would also contend that now the patta was transferred in favour of the fifth respondent, without notice to the petitioner, and therefore, the order, dated 09.11.2010, passed by the Tahsildar is legally not sustainable. The order dated 9.11.2010 is against the principal of natural justice. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondents 1 to 3, would contend that the matter can only be decided by the District Revenue Officer, as he is the competent authority to decide the same and the patta was transferred by the Tahsildar only by virtue of the exparte decree passed in the civil suit, as they are bound by the decree of the civil Court. In any view of the matter, the District Revenue Officer can decide the matter in the final order and the patta could be transferred thereafter. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would contend that the appeal is still pending before the District Revenue Officer and in view of the ex-parte decree, the patta was transferred in their name, subsequent to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. 6. Heard all the parties. 7. It is pertinent to point out that the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed a reasoned order, after hearing all the parties. As against the same, the fifth respondent has filed an appeal and the same is pending before the District Revenue Officer, there is no stay also hence, the issuance of patta will be decided only after the final disposal of the appeal. The Tahsildar by virtue of the decree granted by the Civil Court, has transferred the patta in the name of the fifth respondent. However, the Tahsildar by order dated 09.11.2010, without due notice to the petitioner, passed the impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 order as it is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. The same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. 8. It is made clear that the appeal is pending before the District Revenue Officer, who is the competent authority and therefore, this Court is inclined to directed the District Revenue Officer, the first respondent herein, to dispose of the appeal, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order and the patta will be transferred only in accordance with the order passed by the District Revenue Officer. 9. With the above said observation and direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Revenue Officer Karur District 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Karur District 3. The Tahsildar Office of Tahsildar Karur District +1cc to Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, Advocate, Sr.No.6407 +1cc to Mr.V.Balaji, Advocate, Sr.No.6596 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 6584 W.P.(MD).No.1008 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 14.03.2011 vsg SMA/30.03.2011/7C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/