Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 4
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
N.Balakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
District Revenue Officer & Others - Respondents
W.P.No.1068 of 1996
Decided On : 03 January 2006
Proper application of the legal framework, particularly the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of ownership) Act, is essential for reaching valid decisions in land dispute cases.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Land Dispute - Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of ownership) Act (XL of 1971) - Section 3, Section 15-A(1), Section 15-A(2) - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of ownership) Act, particularly Section 3, Section 15-A(1), and Section 15-A(2). The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision in setting aside the order granting 'kudiyiruppu patta' and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the order of the District Revenue Officer (DRO) cancelling the 'kudiyiruppu' land awarded to Rajammal under the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of ownership) Act. The dispute arose from a representation made by the fourth respondent, claiming to be the original owner of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the DRO's order was passed without proper consideration of the legal provisions and facts in issue. The court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the DRO for fresh consideration, affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and the legal heirs of the fourth respondent.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the representation made by the fourth respondent, the applicability of the limitation period for filing appeals, and the interpretation of Section 15-A of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the DRO to consider the legal contentions and provisions of the Act, particularly Section 15-A. The court emphasized the need for proper application of the legal framework in reaching decisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the DRO's order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order dated 6.11.1994 passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.30542/94/I.3 and quash the same.)
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent-District Revenue Officer (DRO) dated 6.11.1994, allowing the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent-Natesan, since deceased, now represented in this writ petition by the respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are the sons of the fourth respondent. The first respondent, by the impugned order dated 6.11.1994, cancelled the Award No.831/72-73 issued on 29.12.1973.
2. Facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:
(a) One Rajammal, the wife of Rangasamy Servai was assigned land of an extent of 0.03 cent in R.S.No.130/3-7, Manapparavi Village of Nannilam Taluk for ‘kudiyiruppu’ by the Joint Special Deputy Collector (Kudiyiruppu) under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of ownership) Act (XL of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
(b) Rajammal and her husband Rengasamy Servai were living in ‘kudiyiruppu’ land and the said Rajammal died in the year 1987 and in 1991, Rengasamy Servai died and there were no issues to them. During the lifetime of Rengasamy Servai, he executed a “Will” on 19.7.1987 in favour of his eldest brother Ganapathy Servai and in this Will, he bequeathed the “kudiyiruppu” land assigned to his wife Rajammal.
(c) It is the case of the petitioner that on 2.12.1991, Ganapathy Servai entered into an agreement for sale with the writ petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,500/- and he received a sum of Rs.500/- as advance. On 25.10.1991, the fourth respondent (since deceased) made a representation to third respondent-Tahsildar, stating that “kudiyiruppu” land, measuring 0.03 cent inherited by him and that the same was assigned to the said Rajammal by the Government under the Act in Award No.831/72-73 dated 29.12.1973. He further stated in that representation that both Rengasamy and his wife Rajammal lived in the said property in a thatched house and that they did not have any issues and they were living by receiving old age pension from the Government.
(d) It was represented by the fourth respondent in his representation that both Rajammal and Rengasamy expired and that some other person who is not connected to Rajammal and Rengasamy, is living in the said property. The fourth respondent in his representation, requested the third respondent-Tahsildar to vist the property in question and vacate the person living in that place so as to enable him to gain access to his agricultural land through the house-site property, which is the subject matter of issue in this writ petition. The fourth respondent further represented that he did not receive any compensation in respect of the property which was given as “kudiyiruppu” land to the said Rajammal.
(e) Based on the said representation of the fourth respondent, the third respondent-Tahsildar, after enquiry, passed an order dated 19.8.1992, stating as follows:
“Rajammal and her husband Rengasamy holding “Kudiyiruppu” patta in S.No.130/3-7 are the recipients of old age pension. The contention that the person receiving old age pension, has executed a Will, is not acceptable. The Will has not been registered. Only the thumb impression is affixed on the Will. However, the said Rengasamy who is said to have affixed thumb impression, has executed a document by affixing his signature. Hence, there is a doubt regarding the “Will”. The person who is residing is not the legal heir of the recipient of “kudiyiruppu patta”. Hence, till the Government arrives at a final decision in respect of S.No.130/3-7, “kudiyiruppu patta”, the petitioner or the respondent or anybodyelse should not enter into the said property.”
(f) In the said proceedings of the Tahsildar, the writ petitioner participated as opposite party.
(g) A
