Back
2011 (4) CTC 499, 2011 (3) LW 922, 2011 (6) MLJ 731
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN
M. Govindan & Another
Versus
The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration & Others
W.P.Nos.14082 OF 2004, 13342 OF 2009 AND 14792 OF 2009
Decided On: 12-04-2011
Writ Petitions - Land Dispute - Tamil Nadu (Estate Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1948 - Section 11(a) - Summary: The court disposed of Writ Petitions containing identical issues related to the grant of patta for a land in Periakudal village. The petitioners had applied for patta, which was initially granted but later set aside by the first respondent. The court examined the legality of the actions taken by the authorities and dismissed the Writ Petitions, stating that the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration had the power to initiate suo motu revision and cancel the patta granted to the petitioners. The court also noted that the civil court proceedings were not within its purview.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for patta for a land in Periakudal village, which was initially granted but later set aside by the first respondent. The petitioners claimed continuous possession and enjoyment of the land before the notified date and had purchased the land from previous owners. The dispute also involved the demolition of a temple on the land and subsequent legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration had the power to initiate suo motu revision and cancel the patta granted to the petitioners. The court dismissed the Writ Petitions and stated that the civil court proceedings were not within its purview.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the actions taken by the authorities, including the initiation of suo motu revision, the show cause notice, and the opportunity given to the petitioners to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration had the power to initiate suo motu revision and cancel the patta granted to the petitioners. The court also noted that the civil court proceedings were not within its purview.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petitions and stated that the civil court proceedings were not within its purview.
Yes, the opportunity to be heard is a fundamental aspect of natural justice and is generally considered necessary before any adverse decision is made that affects a person's rights or interests (!) . Ensuring that parties have a chance to present their case, respond to allegations, and clarify their position helps maintain fairness and transparency in the judicial process (!) . Denying an individual the opportunity to be heard can render the decision void or liable to be challenged on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice (!) . Therefore, providing an opportunity to be heard is a crucial component of lawful and equitable decision-making.
1. W.P.No.14082 of 2004 has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings R.Dis.(K1)51525/2001, dated 05.04.2004 and quash the same.
2. W.P.No.13342 of 2009 has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents or their men, agents and servants from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with respect to the property bearing Survey No.39 (part) and 40/5 (part), New T.S.No.1, Block No.15, at No.77,Periakudal village, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, to an extent of about 72 cents and for a direction to respondents to reconstruct the demolished temple originally situated on the land belonging to the petitioner besides replacing the deities numbering 10 or in the alternative to award a compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs.
3. W.P.No.14792 of 2009 has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land situated at Old Survey No.39 (part) and 40/5 (part), New T.S.No.1, Block No.15, at No.77,Periakudal village, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, to an extent of about 72 cents and pay compensation for the loss due to the inaction of the respondents.
4. Since all these Writ Petitions contain identical issues, they are being disposed of in common. For the sake of convenience, let us take the facts in W.P.No.14082 of 2004.
The petitioner and four others applied before the third respondent under Section 11 (a) of the Tamil Nadu (Estate Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1948 (Tamil Nadu Act 26/48), hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for grant of patta in respect of the land in Old S.No.39 part and 40/5 part, New T.S.No.1, Block No.15, measuring an extent of 72 cents in Periakudal village, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk. The third respondent had, after conducting an enquiry and field inspection, passed an order in his proceedings No.S.R.2/2001, dated 13.03.2001, allowing patta for the said land in favour of the petitioner and four others. The petitioner and four others have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land before the notified date and they have purchased the said land from the persons who have got patta in respect of the said land before the notified date.
5. While so, the first respondent has issued a show cause notice, dated 13.03.2002, whereby it was proposed to initiate suo-motu revision under the said Act to consider the question of revising the order of third respondent and, thereafter, the first respondent passed the impugned order, setting aside the order of the third respondent. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
6. Petitioner in W.P.No.14792 of 2009 is the joint owner of the property and in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property measuring an extent of 72 cents bearing Old Survey No.39 (part) and 40/5 (part), New T.S.No.1, Block No.15, at No.77, Periakudal village, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk. She submits that originally the property belonged to one Muthu and one Gopalsamy Chetty, who had pattas bearing Nos.17 and 30 respectively. The 'A' Register is also reflecting these entries. She purchased the above property by way of an unregistered sale deed dated 05.10.1952. She is paying the urban land tax in respect of the above said property and is in enjoyment of the same. In the said property, a temple was constructed by the owners named 'Muthumariammal Temple' and 'Sarveguarar Koil' for the devotion of the joint family and public in general. While so, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Administration, Chennai, issued a show cause notice dated 13.03.2002 in Na.Ka.No.K1/51525/01 whereby they proposed to initiate suo motu revision under the Act. Subsequently, by the order dated 05.04.2004, the patta was set aside. Thereafter, the respondents tried to encroach the above property. Hence, a suit was filed in O.S.No.8243 of 2006 before the XIII Ass
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
