Thirumathi Pushpa Bai Bainsingh vs District Collector Tirunelveli Kattabamman District and others

Judgment Pronounced by Thanikkachalam, A.C.J.,

The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition for issue of a writ of cortiorarified mandamus, calling for the

records relating to the order passed by the first respondent/District Collector, Tirunelveli, Kattabamman district, in Ra.Ka.No.Pal.16133 of 1997,

dated 17.2.1997 and quash the same. The District Collector/first respondent passed an order, dated 17.2.1997, based on the report filed by the

Tahsildar. Before the Tahsildar, the writ petitioner appeared and also gave his written submission. According to the writ petitioner, he has got no

other land except the land under acquisition. It was also represented that in the land there are coconut yielding trees as evidenced by the adangal

recorded, for the year 1996. Therefore, according to the counsel appearing for the appellant herein, without giving an opportunity to establish her

case, the Collector passed the order on the basis of the report filed by the Tahsildar. We have also heard the learned Government Advocate on

this aspect. Considering the fact that the appellant herein was not given an opportunity before passing the order by the Collector we set aside the

order dated 17.2.97 passed by the first respondent and direct the District Collector, first respondent herein, to pass an order in the above matter,

after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant herein/petitioner in the writ petition. Accordingly the order passed in the writ petition is

set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.

C.M.P. No. 5316 of 1997. Since the main case writ appeal itself is allowed, the above C.M.P., is dismissed as unnecessary.