P.LOGAMANI Vs. THASILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dtd. 18/6/2025 of the Revenue Divisional Officer allowing the appeal filed by the fourth respondent herein and the consequential order dtd. 20/6/2025 of the Tahsildar restoring the patta in the name of the fourth respondent are challenged in these two writ petitions.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the patta stood in the name of the petitioner pursuant to a patta transfer order of the Tahsildar. Without notice to the petitioner, at the instance of the fourth respondent herein, he submits that the impugned order was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. He submits further that an order of interim stay had been issued in W.P.(MD) No.18645 of 2025 and that the Revenue Divisional Officer proceeded to hold an inquiry while the writ petition was pending and issued a subsequent order dtd. 5/8/2025. On account of breach of principles of natural justice, learned counsel contends that these orders cannot be sustained. Without prejudice, he refers to the adangal relating to the relevant properties to contend that the name of the petitioner's husband Pichai is recorded therein.

(3.) Learned counsel for the private respondent in these two writ petitions refutes these contentions by submitting that the patta stood in the name of Matthew until 15/5/2025. At the instance of the petitioner, such patta was transferred to the petitioner's name on that date. He submits that this was done without notice to the pattadhar.