NACHIMUTHU GOUNDER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Mu.Mu.No,2149 of 1997 dated 13.05.1997 on the file of the fourth respondent and the same is confirmed in Na.Ka.S.R.No.13/97/A9/Ni.A dated 11.12.1998 on the file of the second respondent and quash the order dated 11.12.1998 and pass order.) The land comprised in S.No,421/1 at Mullipuram Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Erode District was originally classified as Natham land and the extent of the land is 17.680 hectares. Under the Natham Settlement Scheme, patta was issued to the petitioner on 29.12.1995. But, no appeal was preferred by any one challenging the said patta to the appellate authority. Instead, the fifth respondent claiming to be the President of Kongu Ilaigngar Pani Mandram, submitted a representation on 01.04.1997 to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram requesting him to cancell the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. After holding an enquiry by order dated 13.05.1997, in Na.Ka.No,2149/97, the said request was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer. But curiously, on the very same day, he passed yet another order in Mu.Mu.No,2149 of 1997 dated 13.05.1997 cancelling the said patta issued in favour of the petitioner. Both the orders were passed obviously on the basis of the representation made by the fifth respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Erode District. By order dated Na.Ka.S.R.No.13/97/A9/Ni.A dated 11.12.1998, the District Revenue Officer confirmed the second order of the Assistant Settlement Officer thereby affirming the cancellation of patta issued in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner is now before this Court with this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. Since there was no representation for the fifth respondent on 10.06.2009, the matter was listed today to afford one more opportunity to the fifth respondent. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of the fifth respondent and so, I proceed to dispose of the writ petition after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and also after perusing the available records.

(3.) IN view of all the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of cancellation of patta issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer Tharapuram, Erode District and confirmed by the District Revenue Officer, Erode are set aside. However, it is made clear that if the fifth respondent feels that he has got title over the said property, he is at liberty to work out his remedies by getting his title declared in an appropriate civil suit to be filed before the civil Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.