1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.11.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)Nos. 6510 and 6511 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos. 1,1,2 and 2 of 2011 P.Mariapushpam ... Petitioner in W.P.No.6510 of 2011 M.Bhagavathiammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.6511 of 2011 Vs. 1.The District Collector, Collectorate Office,Dindigul District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. 4.The Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, Kodaikanal,Dindigul District. 5.P.Shanmugasundaram ... Respondents in both the petitions Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.939/2011/A2 dated 25.5.2011 on the file of the Respondent No.2 peraining to the petitioner's property situated at Kodaikanal Town, Ward D, Block 14, T.S. No. 11/17 an extent of 1.5 cents and quash the same as illegal and to pass such further order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Alagathevan Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.S.Kadarkarai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R The petitioners have come up with the above Writ Petitions challenging an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal, canceling the assignments made in favour of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Alagathevan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 3 Mr.S.Kadarkarai, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 3. The petitioners were assigned very small extents of land measuring about two cents each by the proceedings of the third respondent herein. On the ground that the petitioners have also obtained patta for other vacant lands, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a show cause notice dated 10.5.2011 to the petitioners, calling upon them to appear for an enquiry on 25.5.2011.On 25.5.2011,the petitioners submitted representations seeking 15 days time to submit certain records. As a matter of fact the petitioners appeared before the second respondent and made the request in writing. But the second respondent canceled the patta by the order dated 25.5.2011, on the very same day. 4. The sequence of events narrated above would show that despite the appearance of the petitioners on the day of hearing and also making a request for time, the second respondent proceeded to pass orders canceling the assignments. This shows that the petitioners did not receive adequate opportunity of being heard. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for a fresh disposal. The second respondent shall serve upon the petitioner fresh notices of hearing, giving a sufficient duration for the petitioners to file documents. On the date so fixed by the second respondent, the petitioners shall produce all documents and appear for the enquiry and make their submissions. Thereafter, the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.s are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To, 1.The District Collector, Collectorate Office,Dindigul District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk,Dindigul District. 4.The Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, Kodaikanal,Dindigul District. +1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, Sr.No.39594 W.P.(MD)Nos. 6510 and 6511 of 2011 1.11.2011 ses SMA/21.11.2011/6C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/