(1.) The petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in Roc.No.A4/2476/97, dated 27.09.1997. The petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in Roc.No.A4/2476/97, dated 27.09.1997.
(2.) According to the petitioners, the land comprised in Survey No.55 0, Mayiladumparai Village, Andipatti Taluk, is classified as Panchamthangi Kanmai Poramboke in the revenue records and the ancestors of the petitioners, about 40 years ago, planted silk cotton, coconut, Tamarind, Mango, Jack Fruit and Naval trees on the poramboke land and cultivated them. It is further stated by the petitioners that the Government issued 'B' Memos to the petitioners and collected penal assessment from them. The petitioners have further stated that they applied to the third respondent for issuance of 2C Patta in their names in respect of the trees and the Special Officer of the 4th respondent Panchayat Board passed a Resolution, dated 03.09.1996, recommending the issue of 2C patta to the petitioners and the third respondent also made a spot inspection and passed an order, dated 05.12.199 6, issuing 2C Patta to the petitioners with regard to the trees and the same was recorded in 2C Register. It is further stated by the petitioners that the second respondent, by order dated 27.09.1997, made in Roc.No.A4/2476/97, cancelled the 2C patta granted by the third respondent to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the impugned order has been passed without notice to them and without giving them opportunity in violation of the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed. It is further stated by the petitioners that grant of 2C Patta is not merely a licence simplicitor, but coupled with an interest in the property and therefore it cannot be revoked. The petitioners have further stated that they are not members of one family as alleged in the impugned order and it is based on mistake of fact and liable to be set aside.
(3.) The first respondent has filed a detailed counter in which it is stated that the Government in G.O.(Permanent) No.705, dated 19.06.19 92, has issued certain instructions fixing the ceiling in issuing 2 C Pattas to one family to 5 tamarind trees or 25 coconut trees or 50 palm trees, etc. and without adhering to the above instructions, the 4 th respondent panchayat passed a resolution stating no objection to grant of 2C pattas to the petitioners and based on the resolution, the third respondent, namely Tahsildar, has granted 2C pattas to the petitioners. It is further stated in the counter that the Panchayat Resolution was passed by the Panchayat Union Commissioner, in the capacity of Special Officer and that was cancelled by the first respondent in his proceedings, dated 29.05.1997, on the ground that the Divisional Development Officer (Panchayat) was the competent authority to pass a resolution of no objection as per the Panchayat Act. The first respondent has further stated in the counter that following the cancellation of the Panchayat Resolution, the second respondent in his proceedings Roc.No.A4/2476/97, dated 27.09.1997, cancelled the 2C patta issued by the Tahsildar, on 05.12.1996. It is further stated in the counter that 2C patta granted by the third respondent is against the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.705, dated 19.06.1992 and hence the order granting 2C Patta is not legal. The first respondent has further stated in the counter that the action of the third respondent is prima facie wrong and hence it is not necessary to give opportunity to petitioners and the grant of 2C Patta is not a irrevocable licence.