T BALAKRISHNAN Vs. SUB. REGISTRAR, SATTUR, VIRUTHUNAGAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner is the owner of the lands in survey Nos. 50/2, 40/3, 40/2, 41/4c, 39/1, 39/2A, 39/2B, 39/4, 39/5, 40/5 and 40/6 of E. Muthuramalingapuram Village and Panchayat, Viruthunagar District and he executed a power of attorney deed in Power of Attorney deed No. 348 of 2002 dated 25.11.2002 in favour of the second petitioner herein. Apart from that, the second petitioner also bought some lands in survey Nos. 46/5, 46/6, 51/6, 51/7 and 47/6B of E. Muthuramalingapuram Village and Panchayat, Virudhunagar District from one Mr. M. Subramaniam and Mr. M. Sundararaj. Pursuant thereto, the second petitioner laid the said lands including some other lands in an extent of 40.10 acres into house plots as per the rules in force and applied for approval of the lay out to the Panchayat President. According to the petitioners, portion of the land has been set apart for roads and for other common purposes and necessary gift deed has also been executed in favour of the Panchayat - the third respondent herein.Thethird respondent has approved the lay out and has given a no objection certificate to sell them as house plots and pursuant thereto, the second petitioner claimed to have sold 630 plots out of 1061 plots to various persons and the remaining 455 plots are to be sold. When the second petitioner presented a document on 12.8.2005 for registration before the first respondent, the first respondent refused to receive the same stating that he has received a copy of the order dated 12.8.2005 from the second respondent cancelling the approval accorded to the lay out by the third respondent.Thesaid order of the second respondent is impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) THECONTENTION of the petitioners is that the cancellation of the approval by the second respondent is against the mandatory provisions contained in Section 202(2) of the Tamilnadu Panchayats Act, since the second respondent, before issuing the impugned proceedings, has neither issued any notice to the petitioners nor conducted any enquiry.

(3.) LEARNED counsel, by referring to Section 202(2) of the said Act, submits that it is incumbent on the part of the second respondent to issue notice to the petitioners and obtain explanation from them and also give an opportunity of hearing before taking action on any of the grounds referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub. Section (1) of Section 202 of the said Act.