C R JOTHI MALLIKA Vs. PAULIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRIEVED by the order of the learned single Judge dated 08. 10. 2002 made in W. P. No. 37987 of 2002, the petitioner has preferred the above appeal.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondents 1, 4 and 5

(3.) IT is the grievance of the appellant that the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Kanyakumari District, the fourth respondent herein, without giving notice to him or affording opportunity, passed an order granting individual patta in the name of the first respondent herein viz. ,paulian. According to the learned counsel, when the appellant filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, the fifth respondent herein, without either hearing or affording any opportunity, had passed an order, confirming the order of the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar. In other words, the only grievance of the appellant was that both before the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, the fourth respondent and the Revenue Divisional officer, the fifth respondent, she was not given opportunity to putforth her case. A perusal of the orders of both the authorities show that based on the decree of the Civil Court and accepting the claim of the first respondent, the order came to be passed granting individual patta in favour of the first respondent.