1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P(MD)No.8313 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.3 & 4 of 2011 1.Marnadu 2.Mohan ... Petitioners Versus 1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 3. The Tahsildar, Madurai North, Madurai. 4. The Village Administrative Officer, Chettikulam Village, Madurai North, Madurai. 5. Madasamy ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the second respondent in Ni.Mu.19715/11/G2 dated 05.05.2011 and quash the same as illegal and further more direct the third respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioners to the extent of 0.33.0 Hectares in S.No.13/3C, Chettikulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Rajaraman For RR 1 to 4 : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss Government Advocate For R – 5 : Mr.V.Karthikeyan O R D E R The petitioners have come up with the above Writ Petition, challenging an order passed by the second respondent namely, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 District Revenue Officer, cancelling the entries made in the Revenue records in favour of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr.R.Rajaraman, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.V.Karthikeyan, learned Counsel for the fifth respondent. 3. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner made elaborate submissions, contending that the fifth respondent played a fraud in getting his name included in the revenue records, the learned Counsel for the fifth respondent also made equally forcible allegations against the petitioners. But the scope of the enquiry under this jurisdiction is limited. Considering this limitation, if we look at the impugned order, it is clear that the second respondent has passed the impugned order, on a representation made by the fifth respondent, dated 11.03.2011 and after obtaining the report of the Sub-Registrar and the Tahsildar, Madurai North. But the petitioners were not put on notice. No opportunity was given to the petitioners before the impugned order was passed. 4. In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, this Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remitted back to the second respondent for a fresh consideration. The second respondent shall issue notice to the petitioners and the fifth respondent, give opportunities to both parties to file their objections and also file documents and thereafter the second respondent shall pass a considered order. The whole exercise shall be completed by the second respondent within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 3. The Tahsildar, Madurai North, Madurai. 4. The Village Administrative Officer, Chettikulam Village, Madurai North, Madurai +One Cc to Mr.R.Rajaraman, Advocate, SR.No.42781 +One cC to Mr.V.Perumal, Advocate, SR.No.42949 +One Cc to The Spl. Govt. Pleader, SR.No.42886 ps rl/8c – 15.12.2011 W.P(MD)No.8313 of 2011 07.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/