2021 Supreme(Mad) 741

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, S. KANNAMMAL, JJ.
Mani Ambalam – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai & Others – Respondent
W.A (MD) Nos. 316, 317, 618, 323, 324, 325 of 2009, 697, 698, 700, 701, 703, 718 of 2008, 332 of 2011, 299 of 2013, & M.P (MD) Nos. 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 of 2009, 1, 1, 1, 1 of 2008, & C.M.P (MD) No. 10533 of 2018
Decided On : 24-03-2021

Point of law: Fraud vitiates everything. If an order is vitiated by fraud, it does not attain finality and it can be set at naught by a proper proceedings

Headnote:

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 468, 471 r/w 420 – Tamil Nadu Act 26 – Sections 12 and 71 – Letters Patent – Writ of Mandamus – Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P(MD) – In this batch of writ petitions, a few of them are filed for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents and its officials therein in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and most of which are situated in Kazhanivasal Village and O.Siruvayal Village in Karaikudi Taluk in Sivagangai District. – Few of the writ petitions are for Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the Sub- Collector, Devakottai in Na.Ka.

Finding of court: Settlement proceedings was opened in the year 1965 by G.O.Ms. Revenue – The inam lands were taken over by the Government on 15.05.1965. The proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer set out the total extent of the village lands which were taken over by the Government. – Similarly, in respect of Siruvayal Village, the lands were taken over on the same day and the proceedings concluded on 18.05.1972. – Once the lands are taken over by the Government, it vests with the State and any claim by any person that they are in possession and enjoyment, cannot be entertained. – Here also, there was no objection from any of the land owners claiming rectification and the land classification and there was no claim for patta made to the Settlement Officers. – The settlement proceedings reached the finality as per Sections 12 and 71 of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. – Though in the affidavit the appellants have claimed that they have been in possession of their respective extent of lands prior to the commencement of the settlement proceedings, there was not even a scrap of paper produced by the Assistant Settlement Officer before they obtained the ryotwari patta. – Single Judge had held that the appellants/writ petitioners are not entitled for any order from this Court and dismissed all the writ petitions – Court is of the opinion that the appellants have got no leg to stand and it is unfortunate that they preferred appeals before this Court despite the fact that their claims are fraudulent.

Result: Writ Appeals Dismissed