1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:22.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN WP(MD)No.2317 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 A.Narayanan :Petitioner -Vs- 1)The District Collector, Madurai. 2)The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 3)The Tahsildar, Periyur Taluk, Periyur, Madurai District. 4)A.Ramasamy :Respondents Prayer:-Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.74069/2010/G5 dated 11.01.2011 communicated to the petitioner on 19.02.2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction in so far as the petitioner is concerned and further direct the first respondent to pass orders in respect of the application for transfer of proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3190/2010/A3 dated 29.04.2010 on the file of the second respondent to some other Revenue Divisional Officer or competent authority. For Petitioner :Mr.S.Harihara Ramachandran For R.1 to 3 :Mr.K.Balasubramanian,Addl.Govt.Pleader For R4 :Mr.P.T.S.Narendravasan ORDER The petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD).No 12548 of 2010 seeking for a Mandamus to direct the District Collector therein to transfer the appeal filed by the fourth respondent herein from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District, to any other Revenue Divisional Officer or any competent authority. This Court by an order dated 08.10.2010 directed the first respondent therein to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner herein in respect of transfer of patta proceedings to any other Revenue Divisional Officer or the competent authority and pass necessary orders. But, unfortunately, the District Collector, instead of passing an order of transfer of patta proceedings to any other Revenue Divisional Officer or a competent authority, he himself took up the issue in question and passed orders on merits on 11.01.2011 in the very patta proceedings itself. Aggrieved against the order of the District Collector, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. The appellant before the Revenue Divisional Officer is the fourth respondent herein in the Writ Petition. 2.On notice, the fourth respondent would only contend that admittedly the order passed by the District Collector is not in accordance with law as this Court only directed for passing orders in respect of transfer of patta proceedings and that has not been done so. Instead, main order itself has been passed by the District Collector. Therefore, he would contend that since the District Collector is the appellate authority, he could not have passed the orders and he should only direct the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned who is the competent authority to pass orders. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.At this juncture, both the learned counsels also agreed that the earlier Revenue Divisional Officer is transferred. Therefore, they do not want transfer of the appeal before any other Revenue Divisional Officer All that they require is if the order of the District Collector is to be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and if he disposes of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame as fixed by the this Court would suffice. 4.Learned Additional Government Pleader after noticing the above facts, he would contend that they have no objection if the matter is being remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned to pass necessary orders. 5.Since the order of the District Collector dated 11.01.2011 is not i accordance with the direction given by this Court, the order passed by him i set aside in regard to the grant of patta and the matter is remitted back t the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, namely, the second responden who is the competent authority to decide the issue in question as regards the order passed by the Tahsildar. As against the order passed by the Tahsilda both parties will cooperate with the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned fo the early disposal. Therefore, the second respondent on receipt of the file from the District Collector will give sufficient opportunities to th petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, including personal hearing t them and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. The second respondent is directed to pass necessary orders in appeal in th appellate proceedings as against the order of the Tahsildar within a perio of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1)The District Collector, Madurai. 2)The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 3)The Tahsildar, Periyur Taluk, Periyur, Madurai District. +2CC to Mr.S.Harihara Ramachandran, Advocate. SR.No.7461. Ssm WP(MD)No.2317 of 2011 RP/12.04.2011/2p/6c. 22.03.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/