A R ALAGAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant. He made a challenge to the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 28.09.2012 and uncommunicated order, dated 05.02.1983, with a consequential direction, directing to cancel the patta issued in the name of the respondents 4 and 5 in respect of the land, in Survey No.28/13, Patta No.131, situated at Thiruthervalai Village, Anandur Post, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, by restoring the original status and thereafter to conduct a fresh enquiry, by affording all sort of opportunities to the parties, to establish their right to get patta, in respect of the petition land. The writ petition, after contest, came to be disposed of, on 07.11.2016. Challenging the legality and vires of the same, the petitioner came forward to file this writ appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal, as had been narrated in detail and in extenso in the order, which is the subject matter in the writ petition. Therefore, it is unnecessary to restate the same except to narrate the relevant facts, for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal: It is the specific claim of the petitioner that his father had purchased 81 cents of land in Survey No.28/13 [Patta No.131] situated at Thiruthervalai Village and immediately after the purchase, all the revenue records have been changed in his name. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1990. Thereafter, the petitioner had succeeded to his estate and however did not change the revenue records. However, during the month of November, 2012, the respondents 4 and 5 had trespassed into his land, claiming that the patta had been changed in their name and then only, he became aware of the fact that the patta has been changed in the name of the fourth respondent, without any notice and in this regard, he submitted a representation, dated 05.02012, to the respondents 1 and 2, for cancellation of patta and since it was not disposed of, he came forward to file this writ petition and during pendency of the writ petition, an order, dated 28.09.2012, was produced, informing the petitioner that based on the order, dated 05.01983, passed by the third respondent, patta has been cancelled.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the submissions and the materials placed, has taken note of the submission made on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 that despite opportunity being given, the petitioner did not turn up. However, taking into consideration the submission made by the petitioner, directed the petitioner to appear before the second respondent and raise his objection along with the materials, to substantiate his claim and the second respondent, in turn, was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 and 5 and conduct a fresh enquiry and after considering the rival claims, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a stipulated time frame.