2019 (1) TMI 1799 - HC - Indian Laws

Principles of Natural Justice - case of petitioner is that the first respondent did not give any personal hearing or notice before passing the impugned order - Recovery of possession of property - HELD THAT - The fact that the appellant's name was in the revenue records before the modification of entry by the impugned order passed by the first respondent is not in dispute. In such circumstances, even for carrying out any correction, the person, against whom the entry is made, should be given an opportunity before the modification of entry is made. In this case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was not given any opportunity by the first respondent before passing the impugned order. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the appellant before passing the impugned order. The fact that the second respondent, namely, the Tahsildar, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report before the first respondent and on the basis of the said report, the first respondent passed the impugned order will indicate that the impugned order in writ petition is in violation of principles of natural justice. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh hearing and the first respondent shall pass an order after affording sufficient opportunity to both appellant as well as the third respondent and consider their case on merits - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Validity of the sale deed obtained by the third respondent's father.
3. Competence of revenue authorities in deciding title disputes and effecting mutations in revenue records.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the impugned order was passed without a personal hearing or notice, violating principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge acknowledged that no notice was issued by the first respondent but justified the order based on the report submitted by the second respondent, who conducted a fact-finding enquiry. The Single Judge held that the appellant had participated in the enquiry and was thus precluded from claiming a violation of natural justice. However, the High Court found this reasoning flawed, emphasizing that the appellant was not given an opportunity by the first respondent, rendering the impugned order unsustainable on the grounds of natural justice.

2. Validity of the Sale Deed Obtained by the Third Respondent's Father:
The appellant questioned the validity of the sale deed obtained by the third respondent's father in 1977, alleging it was fraudulent. This issue was not addressed by the first respondent or the learned Single Judge. The High Court noted that neither the official respondents nor the third respondent specifically denied the appellant's contention in their counter affidavits. The learned Single Judge's conclusions were deemed speculative as they did not consider the appellant's factual submissions regarding the sale deed's validity.

3. Competence of Revenue Authorities in Deciding Title Disputes and Effecting Mutations:
The learned Single Judge cited a Supreme Court judgment, emphasizing that entries in revenue records are for fiscal purposes and do not confer title. The High Court agreed, stating that revenue authorities are not competent to decide title disputes under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. The Act presumes entries in the patta pass book to be true until proven otherwise or lawfully substituted. The High Court underscored that any modification of entries must be preceded by an opportunity for the affected party to be heard. The impugned order, passed without such an opportunity, was thus in violation of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the first respondent for fresh hearing, ensuring both the appellant and the third respondent are given sufficient opportunity to present their cases. The first respondent's decision will be subject to the outcome of the ongoing civil suit regarding the title. The Court clarified that revenue authorities could correct entries based on admitted facts or fraudulent transactions, provided they adhere to the principles of natural justice.

Final Orders:
1. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No. 18538 of 2013, dated 05.09.2014, is set aside.
2. The impugned order in Na. Ka. No. D2/35057/2013, dated 18.10.2013, is quashed. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration.
3. The first respondent shall pass a new order after affording sufficient opportunity to both parties and consider their submissions on merits.
4. The first respondent's new order will be subject to the outcome of O.S. No. 271 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kovilpatti.
5. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

← Previous Next →