BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/10/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD)No.11072 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Renganathan .. Petitioner Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Land Administration, Trivandrum Road, Thirunelveli. .. Respondent PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent, from in any manner finalizing the proceedings for determination of land holding under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling) Act, Act 58 of 1960 and the amendment Act 17 of 1970 pursuant to his notice dated 14.03.2011 in No.A2/158/2011, without hearing the objections and statement of the petitioner. !For Petitioner ... Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan ^For Respondent ... Ms.S.Bharathi Government Advocate ***** :ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a Writ of
Mandamus, to forbear the respondent, from in any manner finalizing the
proceedings for determination of land holding under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling) Act, Act 58 of 1960 and the amendment Act 17 of 1970
pursuant to his notice dated 14.03.2011 in No.A2/158/2011, without hearing the
objections and statement of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the
respondent.
3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
one of the co-owner of the land in question. Therefore, when notice was issued
calling upon the petitioner and his father to submit their explanation, the
petitioner has submitted his explanation viz., 18.04.2011, 16.06.2011 and
10.09.2011.
5. Therefore, the only grievance made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner’s legal rights in respect of the land in
question has been subsequently decided by a civil Court in O.S.No.377 of 1994.
If the respondent gives an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case not
only the petitioner is the beneficiary but also the respondent. The said request
cannot be resisted by the respondent or by this Court.
6. Therefore, as he has already submitted his representation, he is
entitled to be heard personally. On that basis, this Court directs the
respondent to hear the petitioner by giving reasonable opportunity and decide
the matter in accordance with law.
7. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
ps
To
The Joint Commissioner,
Land Administration,
Trivandrum Road,
Thirunelveli.