Prayer in W.P(MD)No.1919 of 2017:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned orders passed by the 1st Respondent in his proceedings without giving notice in Pa.Mu.A4/5841/2014 dated 22.07.2015 dated 27.10.2015 further 3rd respondent order in appeal Proceeding No.O.Mu.(gp5)/16218/2016 dated 10.05.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to issue regular patta Prayer in W.P(MD)No.1920 of 2017:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned orders passed by the 1st Respondent in his proceedings without giving notice in Pa.Mu.(A4)/5842/2014 dated 22.07.2015 and Review Order of the 1st Respondent in O.Mu.(A4)/7147/2015 dated 27.10.2015 further 3rd respondent order in appeal Proceeding No.O.Mu.(gp5)/16218/2016 dated 10.05.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to issue regular patta.
In both the writ petitions, the petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the third respondent/District Revenue Officer, dated 07.04.2015 rejecting the revisions filed by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have not enclosed the order passed by the second respondent, dated 22.07.2015.
2.The grievance of the petitioners is that when they have applied for issuance of patta before the revenue officials in respect of their own private patta land, the said officials have given free patta to the petitioners, as if, the lands belong to the Government. Therefore, they filed revisions before the District Revenue Officer, on 25.02.2016. The said revisions were rejected by the third respondent/District Revenue Officer by stating the reasons as stated supra.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the said reasons stated in the impugned communications are factually in correct in view of the fact that the typed set of papers filed along with the revisions contain those documents at page Nos.60 and 64. However, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are willing to submit those documents once again before the third respondent for him to consider the revision on merits.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that if those documents are furnished by the petitioners, the revision will be considered by the third respondent.
5. Considering the above-sated facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioners shall submit the documents referred to in the impugned orders before the third respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order while resubmitting the revisions. On receipt of such revisions along with the documents as referred to, the third respondent shall consider the revision and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter, after hearing the rival claimants, if any. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Sub Collector, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Tahsildar, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The District Revenue Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District..