Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
Sennimalai Gounder (Died) & Others - Petitioner
Versus
Additional District Magistrate & District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 4477 of 2006 & M.P. No. 4811 of 2006
Decided On : 29-04-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act - Section 8(2)(i)(a) , 11(1) and 11(3) - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act - Section 8 and 45(3) - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1959 - Incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms Act,1959 - Possession of lands - Documentary and oral evidence - Respondent herein had jurisdiction to issue Order dated to cancel pattas that were issued to Petitioners, which Order was confirmed in Revision by Order dated - Ancillary question that also arises for consideration is whether Petitioners herein acquiesced in exercise of jurisdiction by participating in proceedings before Second Respondent and by filing a Revision Petition before First Respondent and therefore relinquished right to raise plea of lack of jurisdiction - Lands comprising several sub divisions in Survey No. of an aggregate extent of 45 acres 32 cents in Village were originally comprised in T.D.No. Devadayam Inam (unenfranchised minor inam) - Inam tenure of said lands were abolished pursuant to entry into force - Joint pattadar in respect of land bearing Survey No.194/C8, , died and Second Petitioner herein, who is younger brother, succeeded him as his legal heir – Held, aforementioned judgments of Honble Supreme Court, it is very evident that Second Respondent herein, Sub Collector, Pollachi does not have jurisdiction under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act to initiate proceedings and cancel Ryotwari pattas issued under statute because power and jurisdiction in this regard, is expressly conferred on Tribunal, namely, designated Sub Court concerned - In view of fact that there is complete lack of jurisdiction and not merely a pecuniary or territorial limitation, principles laid down in case reported - Contention of Petitioners herein that Second Respondent did not have jurisdiction or authority to cancel Ryotwari pattas in favour of Petitioners is valid - In view of fact that neither Second Respondent nor First Respondent possess jurisdiction under Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Act, existence of an alternative remedy is not material - As such, this Writ Petition is maintainable and Petitioners herein are entitled to the relief requested - Impugned Orders of Second Respondent dated and that of First Respondent dated are liable to be and are hereby quashed - Needless to say in these proceedings, no findings are being recorded on merits of dispute relating to title to said lands -Writ Petition is allowed
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari cum Mandamus calling for the records of the First Respondent relating to the Order R.P.No.11/2005/C2 dated 06.01.2006 confirming the order of the Second Respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.7422/04/B1 dated 29.06.2004, quash the same in so far as it relates to the lands belonging to the Petitioners herein bearing Survey Nos.194/C8, 194/C10A, 194/C10D, 194/C11A, 194/C11B, 194/C11C, 194/C12 and 194/C13 in Village No.11,Moongiltholuve, Udumalpet Taluk, Coimbatore District, direct the Third Respondent to restore and record the names of the Petitioners in respect of the aforesaid lands in the village records.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the Order of the First Respondent in R.P.No.11/2005/C2 dated 06.01.2006 confirming the order of the Second Respondent in Na.Ka.No.7422/04/B1 dated 29.06.2004 and consequently to direct the Third Respondent to restore and record the names of the Petitioners in the village records in respect of the lands that are subject matter of the present Writ Petition.
2. The primary question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the Sub Collector, Pollachi, namely, the Second Respondent herein, had the jurisdiction to issue the Order dated 29.06.2004 to cancel the pattas that were issued to the Petitioners, which Order was confirmed in Revision by Order dated 06.01.2006. The ancillary question that also arises for consideration is whether the Petitioners herein acquiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction by participating in proceedings before the Second Respondent and by filing a Revision Petition before the First Respondent and, therefore, relinquished the right to raise the plea of lack of jurisdiction.
3. The relevant facts for the purposes of deciding this Writ Petition are as follows:
3(i) According to the Petitioners, the lands comprising several sub divisions in Survey No.194/C of an aggregate extent of 45 acres 32 cents in Moongiltholuvu Village, Udumalpet Taluk were originally comprised in T.D.No.264, Devadayam Inam (unenfranchised minor inam). The inam tenure of the said lands were abolished pursuant to the entry into force of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act) and G.O.No.309 Revenue dated 09.02.1965.
3(ii) After the entry into force of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act, the Settlement Tahsildar-I, Gobichettipalayam re-surveyed and sub-divided the land bearing Survey No.194/C into 13 sub-divisions, namely, 194/C1 to 194/C13. After considering the documentary and oral evidence with reference to the possession of lands, the Settlement Tahsildar-I, Gobichettipalayam by Order bearing S.R.No.479/1968/M.I.Act 30/1963/Udumalpet Taluk dated 27.06.1968 granted Ryotwari patta under Section 8(2)(i)(a) r/w Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act as follows:
(a) Ryotwari patta in respect of land bearing Survey No.194/C8 - extent Ac.6-37 cents, jointly to the First Petitioner herein and Thangavelu(elder brother of Second Petitioner herein);
(b) Ryotwari patta in respect of land bearing Survey No.194/C10 - extent Ac.5-31 cents to Pappal alias Valliammal(mother of the 3rd and 4th Petitioners);
(c) Ryotwari patta in respect of land bearing Survey No.194/C11, 194/C12 and 194/C13 respectively admeasuring 3.31 acres, 0.50 acres and 1.50 acres respectively, jointly to Rangasamy Gounder, Nachimuthu Gounder and Vanjimuthu Gounder(the predecessors-in-interest of the 5th and 6th Petitioners).
3(iii) According to the Petitioners, the joint pattadar in respect of the land bearing Survey No.194/C8, Thangavelu, died and the Second Petitioner herein, who is the younger brother, succeeded him as his legal heir and, therefore, the patta in respect of the land in Survey No.194/C8 was transferred in the joint names of the First and Second Petitioners herein. The pattadar in respect of the land bearing Survey No.194/C10, n
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
