N. Adikesavan vs Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(Mad) 1969

2011 (3) CTC 372
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
N. Adikesavan & Others
Versus
The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai & Others
W.P. Nos.12613 & 24522 of 2001
Decided On: 07-04-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Krishna Moorthy & M. Jaiganesh, Advocates, R. Thiagarajan, S.C.
For the Respondents:R1 to R4 - B. Vijay, G.A., R5 - A.R.L. Sundaresan, S.C., For M/s. Rank Asso. For R. Krishna Moorthy, M. Jaiganesh, R12 - R. Krishnamoorthy, S.C., G. Masilamani, S.C. For R. Swaminathan, Advocates.

Headnote:
The Commissioner of Land Administration (CLA) rightly reversed the order of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement (CDSS) setting aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO) granting patta to the Zamindar in 1952. The CDSS had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 (Act XXVI of 1948) as an appeal lay to the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Act. The CDSS's findings were contrary to settled law and the CLA's order was based on materials on record.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, descendants of the original owners of the land, challenged the grant of patta to the Zamindar in 1952 and the subsequent orders of the CDSS and CLA. The Zamindar had obtained patta under Section 12 of Act XXVI of 1948, which allowed for the grant of patta to Zamindars for private and pannai lands. The petitioners argued that the land was ryoti land and should have been granted patta under Section 11 of the Act, which allowed for the grant of patta to ryots.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the CDSS had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the ASO under Section 5(2) of Act XXVI of 1948 because an appeal lay to the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Act. The court also held that the CDSS's findings were contrary to settled law and that the CLA's order was based on materials on record. The court dismissed the petitions.
Issues: 1. Whether the CDSS had jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the ASO under Section 5(2) of Act XXVI of 1948. 2. Whether the CDSS's findings were contrary to settled law. 3. Whether the CLA's order was based on materials on record.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the CDSS had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the ASO under Section 5(2) of Act XXVI of 1948 because an appeal lay to the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Act. The court reasoned that Section 5(2) only allows the CDSS to interfere with orders for which there is no appeal. 2. The court held that the CDSS's findings were contrary to settled law. The court noted that the CDSS had found that the land was not ryoti land, but the court found that this finding was not supported by the evidence. 3. The court held that the CLA's order was based on materials on record. The court noted that the CLA had considered all of the evidence and had reached a reasonable conclusion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions.

Judgment :-

1. This judgment shall dispose of the following two writ petitions, viz.,

Sl. No.

Case No.

Name of the Petitioner

W.P.No.12613 of 2001

1. N.Adikesavan

2. Chinnayan

3. Jayaraman

4. Mangaliammal

5. Paneerselvam

6. Doss

7. Muthian

8. Muthulakshmi

9. Kannan

10. Parvathiammal

11. Ravi

12. Rukmani

13. Gowri

14. Mohan

15. Valmurthy

16. Dilipkumar

17. Neelakandan

18. Logammal

19. Sakunthala

20. Ravayammal

21. Santhanammal

22. Saraswathi

23. Omprakash

24. Sundararaj

25. Sivaraj

26. Kalaivani

27. Murugesh

28. Lingaganapathy

1. Thirunavukkarasu

2. Killiammal

3. Madurai Muthu

4. Karunakaran

5. Mahalingam

6. Ramadoss

as the common question of law and facts are raised in these two writ petitions. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from W.P.No.12613 of 2001.

2. The petitioners have invoked the extra-ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.05.2001, passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

3. The facts pleaded in support of the petition by B.Balakrishnan, S/o. R.D.Baskar, the Power of Attorney Agent of the petitioners, are that;

i. Koyambedu Village in Chingleput District was originally an Inam Estate. It was notified under the provisions of the Estates Abolition and Conversion into Roytwari Act (Act 26 of 1948) vide G.O.Ms.No.2302 Revenue Department dated 01.09.1951 and taken over on 01.10.1951.

ii. An adjacent village i.e. Thirumangalam was Zamin Estate, which was notified vide G.O.Ms.No.3157 Revenue Department dated 09.12.1950 was taken over on 09.01.1951. Survey was effected and Ryotwari Settlement was introduced in Fazli 1369.

iii. One R.Chandrasekar, a Power of Attorney Agent of Sri Elumalai and others made a claim for patta. The basis of the claim is that the lands covered by the proceedings before the respondents originally belonged to one Tmt.Vedammal. In the year 1914, one Alavattan, S/o. Amavasai and others purchased these lands from her and patta was issued in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased pattadars.

iv. The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai examined the claim and remanded the case to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai for a detailed enquiry.

v) When the matter was pending before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, the petitioners made an application alleging that the lands originally belonged to Alavattan and Amavasai by virtue of the purchase in the year 1914 and 1915. After the death of Alavattan and Amavasai, their legal heirs executed a Power in favour of Thiru R.D.Baskar, father of B.Balakrishnan and after his death, a Power of Attorney was executed in favour of B.Balakrishnan. The petitioners made a claim for patta in the name of the legal heirs of the deceased Alavattan ana Amavasai.

vi. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, vide order dated 31.07.1998, rejected the claim and held that patta already stood granted to one Sri. Renganathan, Ex-Zamindar of Thirumangalam Village under Sections 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act, by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittor vide order dated 31.07.1952.

vii. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai dated 31.07.1998, filed Writ Petition No.14267 of 1998 in this Court. The writ petition was dismissed on 22.09.1998, on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal, before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the appellate authority on 10.11.1998, holding it to be time barred and that the appellate authority had no power to condone the delay.

viii. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 10.11.1998, filed revision before the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, who accepted the revision and allowed Roytwari patta, in favour of B.Balakrishnan, as Power

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2011 Supreme(Mad) 1969

2011 (3) CTC 372High Court of Judicature at MadrasVINOD K. SHARMAN. Adikesavan & Others Versus The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai & OthersW.P. Nos.12613 & 24522 of 2001Decided On: 07-04-2011

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

2011 (3) CTC 372
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
N. Adikesavan & Others
Versus
The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai & Others
W.P. Nos.12613 & 24522 of 2001
Decided On: 07-04-2011