1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated:18.11.2011 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No: 7453 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 M.S.Askandar Sheriff :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai-625 002. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (South), Corporation of Madurai, Madurai. 3.Kulnisar Baham 4.Koshnisar Beham :Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings SR5/02577/11 dated 12.05.2011 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner :Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondents:Mr.S.Janakar,Standing counsel for RR-1 & 2 Mr.N.Ananathapadmanaban for RR-3 & 4 ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of the Corporation of Madurai cancelling the mutation effected in their records. 2.Heard Mr.B.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Janakar, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.N.Anandhapadmanaban for the respondents 3 and 4. 3.The petitioner claims to have purchased the property in question from one D.Fathima and D.Sulthan Ibrahim under a registered sale deed dated 15.03.2011. In the sale deed, the vendors claimed to have become the absolute owners, by virtue of a deed of release dated 23.02.1998 executed by Chandar Nisha and Esrif Jahan. 4.Based upon the said sale deed, the petitioner made a request to the Commissioner of Corporation, Madurai for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 effecting mutation in the records. The Commissioner passed an order dated 09.05.2011 effecting mutation. But without notice to the petitioner, the mutation was reversed by the order impugned in the writ petition, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition. 5.The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 disputes the very execution of the release deed. The learned counsel also claims that a suit for partition has already been filed. It appears that 3rd and 4th respondents had also lodged an objection wayback on 21.03.2011. But without reference to the same, mutation was effected by the order dated 09.05.2011. 6.In other words, just as mutation was effected in favour of the petitioner, without notice to the respondents 3 and 4, mutation was cancelled without notice to the petitioner, perhaps restoring the balance between the rival contestants. 7.But the fact remains that the impugned order was passed without notice to the petitioner. More over it was passed by the Assistant Commissioner cancelling an order passed by the Commissioner. On these two short grounds, the impugned order should go. 8.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. However the first respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4, call upon the parties to file objections as well as produce documents and thereafter pass a considered order. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai-625 002. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (South),. Corporation of Madurai, Madurai. +1CC to Mr.R.Saravanan, Advocate. SR.No.40615. Vs RP/02.12.2011/2P/4C. W.P.(MD)No.7453 of 2011 18.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/