Madras High Court
M.Jayabal vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub ... on 7 October, 2020
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
W.P.(MD) No.13845 of 2020
M.Jayabal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.10.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.13845 of 2020
M.Jayabal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Musiri Division, Musiri,
Trichy District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Thuraiyur Taluk
Trichy District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
relating to the impugned order dated 16.03.2020 issued by the 2nd
respondent to the petitioner's cell phone through short message service
(SMS) and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to
issue separate patta to the petitioner in respect of his Plot No.9 to the extent
of 3240 sq.fts (36 ft x 90 ft) in old S.No.207/3 new T.S.No.35/3, Thuraiyuar
Taluk, Trichy District.
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.13845 of 2020
M.Jayabal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gowrishankar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muniyasamy
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 16.03.2020 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to issue separate patta to the petitioner in respect of his Plot No.9 to the extent of 3240 sq.fts (36 ft x 90 ft) in old S.No.207/3 new T.S.No.35/3, Thuraiyuar Taluk, Trichy District, the petitioner is before this Court with the present writ petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents.
3.By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
4.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in Plot No.9, Old S.No. 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) No.13845 of 2020 M.Jayabal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer 207/3, new T.S.No.35/3, to the extent of 3240 sq. fts. from the date of purchase. It is his further case that at that time, the second respondent has issued joint patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said survey number. While so, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent seeking separate patta for the land in question. Under Right to Information Act, the petitioner, through his Advocate, sought for details about his separate patta. However, the same was rejected by saying that an Advocate cannot seek such information. Challenging the said rejection, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 03.03.2020, which is still pending. Thereafter, the petitioner received an SMS on 16.03.2020 at 2.43 p.m., stating that the Sub Inspector of Thuraiyur Municipality is going to inspect the property in question and as such, while conducting the inspection, the petitioner shall also be present along with the parent document on the same day. When that being the position, before the petitioner could reach with the available documents, within an hour, ie., at 3.48 p.m., the petitioner received another SMS stating that his application seeking patta has been rejected by the 2 nd respondent on 16.03.2020. Therefore, challenging the said rejection made by the 2nd 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) No.13845 of 2020 M.Jayabal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer respondent through SMS, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. I find from the records that no sufficient time has been given to the petitioner to produce the documents sought for by the respondents. Hence, this Court has no other option except to interfere with the decision taken by the 2nd respondent on 16.03.2020 rejecting the request of the petitioner through SMS/MMS. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the authorities concerned and the petitioner shall produce all the necessary documents sought for by the Tahsildar, in order to enable him to get separate patta. It is made clear that once the documents are produced, the authorities shall decide and communicate the decision taken within a period of 30 days, but not hurriedly, as has been done through the impugned order.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.10.2020
Internet : Yes
RR
4/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.13845 of 2020
M.Jayabal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To:
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Musiri Division, Musiri, Trichy District.
2.The Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk Trichy District.5/6
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) No.13845 of 2020 M.Jayabal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
RR Order made in W.P.(MD)No.13845 of 2020 Dated:
07.10.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in