This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorari, challenging the order passed by the 4th respondent, in Na.Ka.No.B5/37925/2009, dated 26.10.2009, confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his order Na.Ka.No.B5/32152/2008, dated 25.06.2009.
2. The main contentions raised by the petitioner is that the 4th respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 26.10.2009, without applying his mind. The 4th respondent had fixed the final hearing, on 31.08.2009, when the learned counsel for the petitioner had appeared and had submitted the written submissions, along with the necessary documents. However, the 4th respondent, without considering the written submissions, submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, had passed the impugned order, dated 26.10.2009. Since, no specific findings have been given in the impugned order of the 4th respondent, dated 26.10.2009, it is liable to be set aside. The 4th respondent had, erroneously, directed the petitioner to approach the civil court to seek the necessary reliefs. While doing so, the 4th respondent had issued directions to the first respondent to transfer the patta in the name of the 5th respondent. It has also been submitted that the 4th respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 26.10.2009, without having the jurisdiction to pass such an order. The impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice and therefore, it is arbitrary, illegal and void.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf for the 5th respondent had submitted that the 4th respondent had passed an elaborate and well considered order, taking into account all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. He had also given sufficient reasons to reject the revision petition filed by the petitioner. From the impugned order of the 4th respondent, dated 26.10.2009, it is clear that the 4th respondent had given sufficient opportunity to the parties concerned to put forth their contentions, through the counsels appearing on their behalf. Merely for the reason that the 4th respondent had not shown the written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner in the reference forming part of the impugned order, it cannot be said that the 4th respondent had not considered the points raised by the petitioner in the written submissions. The petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party, only because the name of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not been mentioned, nor can it said that the order passed by the 4th respondent is invalid in law only for the reason that there was no reference to the written submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent had also placed before this Court the dates and events leading to the passing of the impugned order by the 4th respondent, on 26.10.2009. He had submitted that the petitioner has been, purposely, dragging on the proceedings without allowing the 5th respondent to enjoy the fruits of the order passed by the third respondent, on 25.06.2009. If the petitioner is inclined to establish his rights, in respect of the property in question, it is open to him to approach the civil forum, as observed in the impugned order of the 4th respondent, dated 26.10.2009.
5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the 5th respondent and on a perusal of the original records placed before this Court by the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the impugned order of the 4th respondent, dated 26.10.2009. The petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the fact that the written submissions, said to have been submitted to the 4th respondent, had not been considered, completely and correctly. Even though there is no reference to the written submissions, submitted by the petitioner, in the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent, it cannot be said that the 4th respondent had not considered the contentions raised therein. The 4th respondent has passed an elaborate order considering the various issues that had arisen for his consideration. It is also seen from the impugned order of the 1st respondent, dated 26.10.2009, that both the counsels, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as on behalf of the 5th respondent, had been given sufficient opportunity to put forth their contentions. In the order of the 4th respondent, dated 26.10.2009, the reasons for arriving at the conclusions have been clearly stated by the 4th respondent. It has also been stated that is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil forum to establish his rights, in the manner known to law.
6. In such circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order should be set aside and that the matter is to be remitted back to the 4th respondent for reconsideration, cannot be countenanced.
7. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as being devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
cs To
1.The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram.
3.The Special Deputy Collector, Ramanathapuram.
4.The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram.