Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2019
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Kanniyammal & Another
Versus
The Additional Chief Secretary & Director of Survey & Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai & Others
W.P. NO. 5359 OF 2009 & M.P. NO.1 OF 2009
Decided On : 24-04-2012
For the Petitioner:N. Kannan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2 - V. Subbiah, Spl. G.P., R3 & R4 - R. Karthikeyan R5 to R9 -S.M. Subramaniam, Advocates.
The exercise of revisional powers by the Settlement Officer and the finality of land classifications under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition of Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, were central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition of Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, Section 64(C), Full Bench Judgment - The court discussed the application of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition of Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, and the interpretation of Section 64(C) in finalizing land classifications. The court also referenced the Full Bench Judgment and its influence on the exercise of revisional powers by the Settlement Officer.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order confirming the cancellation of patta granted for certain lands. The lands were originally Ryotwari lands but were declared as 'Anadeenam' in the revenue records after being taken over by the Government. The petitioners sought to set aside the cancellation of patta and restore their ownership.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order passed by the first respondent, confirming the cancellation of patta, was legally correct. It held that the ASO's order to grant patta was outside the jurisdiction and contrary to the government circular, and the Settlement Officer had the authority to restore the correct position.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order passed by the first respondent confirming the cancellation of patta was legally correct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition of Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, and Section 64(C) to determine the finality of land classifications. It also referenced the Full Bench Judgment to support the exercise of revisional powers by the Settlement Officer.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court upheld the order of the first respondent confirming the cancellation of patta, stating that there was no case to interfere with the impugned order.
1. The two petitioners in this writ petition have challenged an order of the first respondent, dated 24.02.2009 made in R.P.No.12 of 2008, in confirming the order of the second respondent viz., the Settlement Officer, Chennai made in R.P.No.1 of 2008 dated 06.10.2008 and seeks to set aside the same.
2. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 02.04.2009 and an interim stay was granted for a limited period. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 09.03.2010 and the interim stay granted was extended until further orders.
3. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, respondents 5 to 9 got themselves impleaded vide order dated 17.02.2010. It was their case that they were also parties before the Settlement Officer's proceedings and hence, they are necessary parties to the writ petition. Though the impleaded respondents filed application to vacate the interim order in M.P.No.2 of 2010, the same was dismissed by this Court on 23.04.2010.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they along with the 4th respondent are joint owners of the lands in Survey Numbers 89/1 to the extent of 0.78 acres and 89/2 to the extent of 2.77 acres, presently bearing Town Survey numbers 11 and 13 respectively in Kolathur Village, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk, within the limits of Chennai City Municipal Corporation. The property was originally comprised in Pymash number 571. The said property in respect of Pymash number 571 and the present Town Survey No.11, R.S.No.89/1 were purchased by one K.P.Sundarambal, wife of Late Perumal Naidu under the registered sale deed dated 06.10.1919 registered as Document No.133/1919 in Sub Registrar's Office, Sembium and by sale deed dated 24.08.1939 registered as Document No.1362 of 1939 in the same Sub-Registrar Office.
5. After the death of Sundarambal, the property devolved on her son Narasimhalu Naidu and after the death of said Narasimhalu Naidu, on his three sons viz., Jayaram Naidu, Venugopal Naidu and Kannaiah Naidu, the husband of 4th respondent and petitioners 1 and 2. They partitioned the said properties among themselves by a registered partition deed dated 24.04.1959 and continued to be in joint possession of the family of late Narasimhalu Naidu. During the settlement proceedings, after the village was taken over by the Government after the enactment of Tamil Nadu Estate Abolition Act, 1940, they did not participate in the proceedings. Hence, the lands were declared as 'Anadeenam' in the revenue records. However, the lands were Ryotwari lands which were purchased by the ancestors of the petitioners and was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the family.
6. The petitioners along with co-owners filed a petition before the Assistant Settlement Officer (for short ASO), Tiruvannamalai District for grant of Ryotwari Patta and after proper enquiry, patta was granted jointly in the name of two petitioners and 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 12.07.2000. Subsequently, the matter was taken to the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur. The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, after giving notice to the parties and after conducting enquiry upheld the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai vide his proceedings dated 22.01.2001.
7. Subsequent to that, one Arulmigu Somanathaswamy Kovil represented by its Executive Officer contended that grant of patta in favour of the petitioners were wrong and they filed a suit in O.S.No.7282 of 2000 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, for an injunction. After a full-fledged trial, the suit filed by the Temple was dismissed on the ground the petitioners are in valid possession of patta. The said temple also filed a writ petition before this Court, being W.P.No.6151 of 2001, praying for a direction to the ASO, Tiruvannamalai to conduct a fresh enquiry. That writ petition was also dismissed as devoid of merits on 29.01.2007.
8. While so, the third respondent, who is the son of late Jeyaram Naidu filed an applicati
