Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
Ayyankutty Gounder (died) & Others
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer & Others
Writ Petition Nos.15659 of 2003 and 44556 to 44558 of 2006 & W.P.M.P.No.2 of 2006 in W.P.Nos.44556 to 44558 of 2006
Decided on: 31-07-2009
Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 - Service inam land - Cancellation of patta - Notice to cultivating tenants - Necessity - Principles of natural justice - Violation.
Fact of the Case:
Four writ petitions were filed challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, cancelling the Ryotwari Patta issued in favor of one Abdul Rasheed in respect of the land in Survey Nos.145, 159 and 222 measuring 6.19 acres situate in Kumarasamipatti Revenue village, Salem Taluk. The petitioners claimed that they were in possession of the land as cultivating tenants and that they should have been put on notice and heard by the competent authority before passing the impugned proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners, being cultivating tenants, had no right to be heard in the proceedings taken by the competent authority for cancellation of the ryotwari patta issued under section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) consequent to the order in STA No.41 of 1977 dated 20.7.1982. The court also held that the subsequent purchasers, who had purchased the land from the legal heirs of the late Khazi, did not have any legal right to plead that they should be noticed in the proceedings of the competent authority to cancel the ryotwari patta issued in favor of the khazi service provider.
Issues: 1. Whether the cultivating tenants had a right to be heard in the proceedings taken by the competent authority for cancellation of the ryotwari patta issued under section 8 of the Act 30 of 1963? 2. Whether the subsequent purchasers had a legal right to plead that they should be noticed in the proceedings of the competent authority to cancel the ryotwari patta issued in favor of the khazi service provider?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the cultivating tenants had no right to be heard in the proceedings taken by the competent authority for cancellation of the ryotwari patta issued under section 8 of the Act 30 of 1963 consequent to the order in STA No.41 of 1977 dated 20.7.1982, as they were not necessary parties to the impugned proceedings taken in terms of the Act 30 of 1963. 2. The court held that the subsequent purchasers, who had purchased the land from the legal heirs of the late Khazi, did not have any legal right to plead that they should be noticed in the proceedings of the competent authority to cancel the ryotwari patta issued in favor of the khazi service provider, as the sale of such property was a clear violation of section 38(3) of the Act 30 of 1963.
Final Decision: All the four writ petitions were dismissed.
All the four Writ Petitions are filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem in R.Dis.No.8741/2002/B2 dated 30.3.2003 and quash the same.
2. All the above four writ petitions have been filed seeking same relief, and therefore, are taken together and disposed of by this common order.
3. W.P.Nos.44556 to 44558 of 2006:- These three writ petitions are filed by M/s.N.Premakumari, M.Balachandran and K.S.A.Mohammed Sheriff aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, in R.Dis.No.8741/2002/B2 dated 30.3.2003 whereby the competent authority cancelled the Ryotwari Patta issued in favour of one Abdul Rasheed in respect of the land in Survey Nos.145, 159 and 222 measuring 6.19 acres situate in Kumarasamipatti Revenue village, Salem Taluk. He also ordered resumption of the land and vested it with the Wakf Board. The petitioner in each one of the cases claims that the legal heirs of Abdul Rasheed, who was rendering Khazi Service, have executed power of attorney in favour of one Viswanathan, who sold the property to third party and the property as indicated below is now in possession of the petitioners as follows:-
.(1) Premakumari – by way of sale deed of the year 1997
.(2) M.Balachandran- by way of gift deed of the year 2003 and
.(3) K.S.A.Mohammed Sheriff – by way of sale deed of the year 1997.
They also stated that they hold Revenue Patta in their favour and they continue to be in possession of the land. Therefore, before passing the impugned proceedings dated 30.3.2003, they should have been put on notice and heard by the competent authority. Stating that the impugned proceedings affecting their rights has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and hence should be quashed.
4. W.P.No.15659 of 2003:- This writ petition is filed by Ayyankutty Gounder and Ponnusamy Gounder. It appears that Ayyankutty Gounder expired and on his death, M/s.Mahalakshmi and Saraswathi, the legal heirs were added as petitioners by order of the court. Now there are three petitioners. Petitioners 2 to 4 state that the land comprised in Survey Nos.145, 159 and 222 measuring 3.19 acres, 2 acres and 1.60 acres respectively situate in Kumarasamipatti Revenue village, were originally Inam lands, and granted to the ancestors of late Khazi Abdul Rasheed for performing the Khazi service. It is stated by the petitioners that Abdul Rasheed and his predecessors were holding and enjoying the land as khazi service providers. It is stated that S.R.Perumal Gounder, the paternal grandfather was a cultivating tenant under the Khazi and after his demise, the family members continue to hold a part of the property. It is stated that one Kalitha Gounder, the father of the petitioners 1 and 4, was in possession of 3.19 acres in Survey No.145. After his demise, the first petitioner is cultivating 1.59 acres out of 3.19 acres in Survey No.145.
5. All the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30.3.2003 cancelling the Ryotwari Patta granted in favour of the deceased Abdul Rasheed in Survey Nos.145, 159 and 222 covered under T.D.No.572 Kumarasamipatti Revenue Village.
6. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appears for the petitioners 2 to 4 in W.P.No.15659 of 2003. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioners, who are cultivating tenants and are in possession of the property are entitled to be noticed in the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer and on failure to observe the principles of natural justice, the impugned order is vitiated and has to be quashed. He relied upon tax receipts and stated that petitioners are in possession. They are entitled to patta as cultivating tenants.
7. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate appears for first respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer in all the four writ petitions. Mr.R.Nalliyappan, learned counsel appears
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
