Mandamus for Revenue Enquiry | Patta Cancellation Dispute Requires Merits-Based Adjudication : Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that revenue authorities cannot evade adjudication of patta cancellation disputes on merits, even when no adverse order is passed against third parties. In a writ petition seeking mandamus for enquiry into alleged irregularities in patta issuance, the Court directed the District Revenue Officer to conduct a hearing and pass final orders within 12 weeks, underscoring the principles of natural justice in land administration proceedings.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Muralisree, challenged the validity of patta No.178 issued in the name of the 4th respondent, K.Dillubabu, for a property described in the supporting affidavit. The petitioner alleged irregularities in the patta issuance process and sought its cancellation through a representation dated 19.12.2025 addressed to the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur District.

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following stages:

• 19.12.2025: Petitioner filed representation before the 2nd respondent seeking patta cancellation
• Post-19.12.2025: No action taken on the representation despite follow-ups
• 2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking mandamus

Relief Sought

The petitioner prayed for:

• A writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct an enquiry into the representation
• Cancellation of patta No.178 standing in the 4th respondent's name
• Time-bound disposal of the representation

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel revenue authorities to adjudicate a patta cancellation dispute on merits, particularly when:

1. The representation had remained unaddressed for over a month
2. No adverse order was being sought against the patta holder
3. The authorities had initiated enquiry proceedings only after the writ petition was filed

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner's counsel, Mr.C.Balasundar, contended that:

• The inaction of revenue authorities on the representation violated the petitioner's right to fair adjudication
• Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue directions for disposal of representations pending before statutory authorities
• The principle of natural justice required that the petitioner's grievances be heard before any decision on patta cancellation

For the Respondents

The learned Government Advocate, Mr.S.Arumugam, representing respondents 1-3, submitted that:

• An enquiry notice had been issued to both the petitioner and the 4th respondent for hearing on 30.01.2026
• The authorities were prepared to adjudicate the matter on merits
• No prejudice would be caused if the representation was considered within a reasonable timeframe

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in the context of administrative inaction. Key observations included:

1. Mandamus as a Remedy for Inaction: The Court noted that writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy when statutory authorities fail to exercise their jurisdiction. The prolonged delay in addressing the petitioner's representation justified judicial intervention.

2. Natural Justice in Revenue Proceedings: The Court emphasized that even in revenue matters, the principles of natural justice must be upheld. The direction to hear objections from the 4th respondent or any other affected party reflected this requirement.

   "No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner's representation... is considered on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the objections of the 4th respondent or any other third party."

3. Judicial Restraint on Merits: While directing disposal of the representation, the Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim. This preserved the administrative discretion of the revenue authorities while ensuring timely adjudication.

4. Time-Bound Adjudication: The Court fixed a 12-week timeline for final orders, balancing the need for expeditious disposal with the requirement of a thorough enquiry.

The Verdict

The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

1. The 2nd respondent (District Revenue Officer) was directed to pass final orders on the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2025 within 12 weeks from receipt of the order
2. The adjudication must be on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing objections from the 4th respondent or any other affected parties
3. No costs were imposed

What This Means For Similar Cases

Mandamus Lies Against Administrative Inaction

The judgment reinforces that writ of mandamus can be invoked to compel statutory authorities to exercise their jurisdiction when:

• Representations remain unaddressed beyond a reasonable period
• No alternative efficacious remedy exists
• The inaction amounts to failure of public duty

Practitioners should note:

• Delay alone may not justify mandamus if the authority has initiated proceedings
• The Court may fix timelines for disposal even in complex revenue matters

Natural Justice in Land Disputes

Revenue authorities must now ensure:

• Opportunity of hearing to all affected parties, including patta holders
• Merits-based adjudication of cancellation pleas, not summary dismissals
• Documented reasons for accepting or rejecting representations

Judicial Deference to Administrative Discretion

While the Court directed adjudication, it maintained:

• No interference with the merits of the dispute
• No expression of opinion on the validity of the patta
• No automatic cancellation of the patta even if irregularities are found

This approach preserves the separation of powers while ensuring accountability in land administration.