1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.298 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Bose .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 2.Backiam .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Na.Ka.B5/52970/2010, dated 12.10.2010 and 30.12.2010 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, unjust without the jurisdiction. For Petitioner : Mr.J.M.Hassnul Bazari For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan for R1 Spl.GP Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam for R2 ORDER The petitioner aggrieved by the enquiry notice issued by the first respondent, the revisional authority, namely The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram has filed the present petition. 2. In the enquiry notice dated 12.10.2010 and 13.10.2010, the petitioner was asked to appear for a an enquiry under the revision petition filed by the second respondent against the joint patta granted in respect of the land in question. 3. It is not clear as to how such a enquiry notice of a revisional authority can be challenged. In the grounds raised in paragraph 12 it was stated that first respondent has not followed any procedure and his action is arbitrary. It was further stated in paragraph 8 that the revision application was not in the form prescribed and there is no proper notification. 4. This Court is not inclined to go into the said objections. In this writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 10.01.2011. Pending notice, no interim order was granted, though an application was filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. On notice from this Court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 15.07.2011. In the counter affidavit, the allegation made by the petitioner had been denied. A reference was also made to Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983. 6. In any event, this Court is not inclined to go into in the merits or demerits of the allegations made in the revision application pending before the first respondent. It is for the petitioner to file appropriate counter affidavit and raise all the grounds that are raised herein and being a revisional authority, it is for the revisional authority to consider all the allegations. 7. Certainly the writ petition will not lie against a mere enquiry notice issued on the revision application filed by the contesting respondent. Hence, no case is made out by the petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No cost. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.E) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. +1 CC to Mr.J.M.Hassnul Bazari, Advocate (SR.No.37974) +1 CC to Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam, Advocate (SR.No.37640) +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.37567) Order made in W.P.(MD)No.298 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 01.11.2011 jikr NSV/15.11.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/