Violation of elementary principles of law being heard.

Mohan, Officiating C.J.

1. This is rather an unfortunate case in which for no fault of the writ petitioner, the third respondent herein, he has been driven from pillar to post. All that the third respondent wanted was a notice before the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 - Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969 were finalised.

2. The short facts of the case are as under:-As early as in 1840 one Padamittah Ookaran, the predecessor-in-title of the appellant came into possession of some of the lands connected with the lands in the Gudalur Janmam. There were certain court proceedings and ultimately in O.S. No. 113 of 1863 on the file of the principal SunderAmin of Calicut, the objection relating to the attachment of a portion of the estate was upheld, and Venkitasubha Iyer the successor-in-interest of Ookaran executed a deed of conveyance in April, 1871 in respect of 3/4th of his share of the property to one C.Rangacharyalu. Subsequent to this conveyance, Venkitasubha Iyer died in 1872 and his son K.Seshadri Iyer became entitled to the remaining 1/4th share in the property. After the death of Venkitasubba Iyer, in 1922 the heirs of Rangacharyalu and Seshadri Iyer formed the present Sathyakumar Estate (P)Ltd., the appellant herein.

3. In 1945, Nilambur Kovilagam, Nilambur filed a suit for declaration in O.S. No. 38 of 1945 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode. The suit was for declaration of title and possession of a tract of unsurveyed forest land and for consequential prayer for injunction. The appellants herein resisted the suit and contended that the Janmi had no title to the suit properties and the Janmi's title, if any, was lost by limitation by adverse possession. The trial court held that the Janmi had no title to the suit property, and even if the Janmi had title, that title was lost by adverse possession. The matter was taken up in appeal to the High Court and the High Court upheld the decision of the trial court. Finally the matter went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in C.A. No. 565 of 1964 by judgment dated 25.8.1966 dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the trial court on all the issues.

4. It requires to be stated here that the property involved in the litigation, as we have said above, is a track of unsurveyed forest land in Nilambur Amsom, Ernad Taluk, now in Kerala State. This we are obliged to state at this stage because there is some dispute as to whether the rights of the appellant had come to be concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court. With this we pass on to the proceedings under Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969.

5. After the judgment of the Supreme Court stated above, the appellant herein in 1973 made an application to the Tahsildar, Gudalur for the grant of janmi patta. On 20-7-1973 notice was issued to M/s. Manjushree Plantations Ltd., the third respondent herein. The third respondent herein on 28.7.1973 made a request for adjournment. Again on 3.8.1973 and 25.8.1973 the third respondent sought adjournment. Again on 27.8.1973, 13.9.1973, 15.9.1973 and 15.10.1973, the enquiry was adjourned at the request of the third respondent. Ultimately, by the proceedings of the Collector of Nilgiris dated 31.12.1974, the Tahsildar was directed to take action and include the name of the appellant as Joint pattadar vide the Collector's proceedings in K.Dis. No. 55239/74, dated 31.12.1974. This is in respect of S. No. 465/3A/1A/3 Patta No. 19 of O' Valley village, Gudalur taluk. Pursuant to this, on 29.2.1976 joint patta was issued and the third respondent, M/s. Manjushree Plantations Ltd., was shown as a tenant. It covered an extent of 12,162.32 acres.

6. While the matter stood thus, the appellant herein applied to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gudalur for the issue of rytowari patta stating that these lands were not covered by Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969. The Director of Survey and Settlement issued instruction