Prayer : Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 09.09.2012 by the 1st respondent herein in N.K.P2/25557/2012 and quash the same and consequently forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 and their officials, servants and persons claiming under them from anyway interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in S.No.10/3 in Mullimunai Village, Karankadu, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District by resorting to eviction proceedings or otherwise or any other manner.
!For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan ^For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Md.Mohideen, A.G.P. For RR1 & 2 MrV.Sitharanjandas for R3 :COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) The writ petitioner questions the order dated 09 September 2012 issued by the first respondent, directing the Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai to evict the petitioner from S.No.10/3 Mullimunai village, Kanattankudi Group, Thiruvadanai Taluki, Ramanathapuram District with police aid.
2.The principal contention of the petitioner is that such a communication has been passed behind the petitioner's back and therefore, the same should be set aside.
3.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that the land in question was originally allotted in favour of his father Thiru.Mohammed Ismail and that the name of the petitioner was illegally entered in the year 1982. He would further contend that on 25 March 2010, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Chennai and that the said proceedings have not been challenged by the petitioner. He would also add that the order impugned in the writ petition was only to implement the said proceedings dated 25 March 2010.
4.We perused the copy of the proceedings dated 25 March 2010, second reference cited in the order impugned in the writ petition. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was put on notice before effecting such a cancellation. Similarly, there is nothing to show that summons were duly served even before passing the present order dated 09 September 2012. However, we do not want to give any finding on the merits of the matter. Serious allegations are made on both sides.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the present order dated 09 September 2012 has been passed entirely at the instance of the third respondent. He would also question the jurisdiction of the first respondent to issue the direction in question. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent would contend that though the land was allotted only for the purpose of coconut plantation, the petitioner has engaged herself in real estate promotion. The counsel also brought to our notice the fresh representation submitted to the District Collector, Ramanathapuram and the initiation of enquiry vide proceedings in O.Mu.X2/13838/2017dated 27 March 2017.
6.The materials on record indicate that proceedings to the detriment of the petitioner have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. We therefore, quash the order dated 09 September 2012 in N.K.P2/25557/2012 issued by the first respondent herein.
7.We relegate the parties to workout their remedies before the District Collector, Ramanathapuram. Since the District Collector, Ramanathapuram had already called upon the Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai to submit the report, it is directed that the matter shall be enquired into by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram. It is open to the District Collector to enquire into the matter comprehensively. If the District Collector comes to a finding against the writ petitioner, he shall take appropriate action in accordance with law for cancellation of the allotment and for resumption of the land from the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not rendered any finding on the merits of the matter. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram shall conclude the enquiry within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8.The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner (Excise) Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.
.