PANCHANATHA ACHARI; ARULANANTHAM; SUNDARAMANI; A BALASUNDARAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU; SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION; DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT; TAHSILDAR, CHENGALPATTU; R RAMESH; M BASHEER MOHAMMED; C SUNDARA MANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for quashing the order of the second respondent dated 21.10.2005, in and under which, the order of the then third respondent, District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram in his proceedings Rc.64992/94/N2 dated 25.10.1997, granting patta in the name of one Panchanatha Achari, who is the first petitioner herein, in respect of the lands in S.Nos.445 and 446/1 of Paiyanur Village, is set aside.

(2.) The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, is as follows:

(3.) While so, the petitioners 1, 2 and 4 by names (i)Panchanatha Achari (ii)Arulanantham and (iii)A.Balasundaram received show cause notice from the second respondent, Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, stating that proposed suo motu proceedings was initiated to cancel the patta granted in favour of the first petitioner, by the third respondent District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram on four grounds: (i)the first petitioner Panchanatha Achari submitted the application for grant of patta outside the scope of the Act only on 3.9.1993 ie., after the lapse of 15 years and after the time allowed for submission of such application expired on 30.6.1975; SLR copy produced along with the application was issued by the Collectorate only on 19.5.1988 and the same would falsify the claim of the first petitioner herein that he made application within the time i.e., on 21.3.1974; (ii)Panchanatha Achari did not in his application dated 21.3.1974, mention that at the time of settlement, his request for grant of patta was disallowed by the settlement authorities. (iii)The first petitioner in his application dated 21.3.1974 admitted that he was a non-resident of Paiyanur Village and not in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, since the notified date. As he was not in possession and enjoyment of the lands, he was not eligible to get patta outside the scope of the Act, which is intended for the benefit of those persons, who are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands on the notified date; and the lands were encroached by some other persons and the village records do not prove his claim regarding continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands in question; and (iv)the first petitioner and other petitioners appeared for the enquiry on 10.10.2005 and the first petitioner sought time for production of certain documents to prove his possession and he also submitted his statement on 12.10.2005. The second respondent, without granting time to the petitioner, passed the impugned order on 21.10.2005 thereby setting aside the order of then District Revenue Officer and cancelling the patta granted in favour of the first petitioner herein. Hence, this writ petition.