Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
D. Lakshmanan – Petitioner
Versus
The Settlement Officer Survey House, Chennai and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 8463 of 2009, M.P. No. 1 of 2009
Decided On : 06-07-2022
Writ Petition - Cancellation of Patta - Ryotwari Act, 1948 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Sections 3(2)(w), 2(d), Explanation (1); Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47-A; Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(e) - The court analyzed the applicability of the Ryotwari Act, 1948 and the legal requirements for granting ryotwari patta. The petitioner failed to prove that the subject lands were ryoti lands and had vested with the Government under the Ryotwari Act. The court also found that the petitioner did not establish pre-existing right over the property. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was found to be passed without proper consideration of the evidence and in violation of principles of natural justice. The court dismissed the writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the cancellation of patta issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer and to direct the issuance of patta to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that the subject lands were ryoti lands and had vested with the Government under the Ryotwari Act, 1948. The court found that the petitioner failed to prove the lands were ryoti lands and did not establish pre-existing right over the property. The court also noted that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was passed without proper consideration of the evidence and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to prove that the subject lands were ryoti lands and had vested with the Government under the Ryotwari Act. The court also found that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was passed without proper consideration of the evidence and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issues were whether the subject lands were ryoti lands and had vested with the Government under the Ryotwari Act, and whether the petitioner had established pre-existing right over the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the subject lands were ryoti lands and did not establish pre-existing right over the property. The court also found that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was passed without proper consideration of the evidence and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petition.
JUDGMENT :
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in R.P. No. 1/2009(E) on the file of the Settlement Officer, Chennai-5/1st respondent dated 23.3.2009 and to quash the same and consequently direct the official respondents (R-1 to R-3) to give effect to the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, dated 24.3.2001 by issuing patta to the petitioner.
1. The present writ petition assails the cancellation of patta, by the 1st respondent, issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai and a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to issue patta to the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject lands, comprised in Survey No. 657/1A measuring an extent of 66.70 acres situate in Pallikaranai Village was originally granted to Ettayapuram Jamin as early as in 1888, which was made at the request of Ettappan by the Chief Secretary to Government dated 15.3.1888, which culminated in the passing of Government Order in Ms. No. 3741, Revenue Department dated 6.8.1888. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Governor in Council had granted certain items of land set out in Order No. 763, Revenue, dated 9.12.1888 as free of assessment, which was followed by issuance of title deed dated 21.3.1911 by the Inam Commissioner as free hold land in perpetuity subject to payment of annual quit rent.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Ettayapuram Jamin, Raja Jagaveera Rama Venkateswara Ettappan, being the grantee to the said free hold inam, died on 24.4.1928 leaving behind his son and daughter and the son of the aforesaid Jamin, settled certain properties, including the subject property in favour of his sister Muthulakshmi Kannappan by virtue of settlement deed dated 4.10.1948 and since then the said Muthulakshmi Kannappan had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property continuously beyond the statutorily prescribed period without interruption and as such became the absolute owner of the said property and a los prescribed title by adverse possession.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Muthulakshmi Kannappan died on 25.8.1997 leaving behind her three daughters, viz. Dhanalakshmi Ammal, Santhanalakshmi and Ramamirtham. It is the further case of the petitioner that son of Ettappan, viz. Ettappa Naicker, had three wives and respondents 4, 8 and 9 are the legal heirs, who have set up rival claim over the subject lands by disputing the validity of the settlement deed executed by their father. The petitioner, being the Trustee of Boomibalaha Trust, purchased the subject lands from all the descendants of the original owner for valuable consideration by virtue of sale deed dated 13.10.2004. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said sale deed has been referred u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act with regard to deficit stamp duty.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that Inam Commissioner was the competent authority to furnish inam holders with title deeds pursuant to the enactment of Madras Inams Act, 1869 and the said authority, in and by his proceeding dated 21.3.1911 issued title deeds in respect of Ettayapuram Jamin by way of free hold inams in perpetuity. It is the case of the petitioner that the Jamin and their legal heirs, having been granted free hold rights in perpetuity, the subject lands devolved upon them by grant of title deeds by the Inam Commissioner.
6. It is the averment of the petitioner that Pallikaranai Village was notified as Inam Village in terms of Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Ryotwari Act’) and land revenue assessment was brought in with effect from Fasli Year 1370 corresponding to English Calendar year 1960. It is the further averment of the petitioner that land owners or the ryots, who, due to inadvertenc
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
