IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
V. Anantharaman & Others - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Thiruvallur & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 4339 of 2015 & 19401 & 15940 of 2020 & C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 1682 to 1684 of 2020
Decided On : 06-06-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common factual background regarding property disputes. (Para 1 , 4 , 6 , 11) |
| 2. nature of the lands and their classification as anaadheenam. (Para 3 , 8 , 14) |
| 3. legal arguments regarding the validity of previous court decrees. (Para 17 , 22 , 25) |
| 4. government's authority related to land classification. (Para 27 , 30 , 41) |
| 5. final court order allowing further claims and the role of the government. (Para 50 , 54 , 72 , 78) |
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: W.P. No.19041 of 2020 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in No.Na.Ka.28676/2017/1 dated 08.11.2018 and quash the same and direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to redeliver possession of the petitioners’ lands measuring 0.33.00 hectares in T.S. No.22/2 and 122/2A2, previously in T.S. No.22/3, Puliambedu Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur Taluk, as per the joint patta No.1875.)
Common Order
1. Since the factual matrix surrounding all the petitions are common one and the petitions are the off-shoot of the act of the Revenue Divisional Officer in directing cancellation of the joint patta and the subsequent act of the District Collector in granting enter upon permission to the Board and also the act of the Board in entering upon the lands and indulging in developmental/construction activity, all the petitions are taken up together compositely and disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in the writ petitions and civil revision petitions will be referred to as petitioners and revision petitioners and the respondents in the said petitions will be referred to by their designation.
3. The lands, which are the subject matter of dispute, which are alleged to belong to the private parties, who are the petitioners in W.P. Nos.4339/15, 19401/20 and 15940/20 having sought to be taken over by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (for short ‘the Board’) without following the due process of law under the pretext of the said lands being ‘Anadheenam Lands’ for which suits have been filed in O.S. Nos. 33 of 2019, 126 of 2019 an 756 of 2018 by the respective plaintiffs/petitioners herein, has culminated into the filing of the respective writ petitions and civil revision petitions.
4. While W.P. No.4339 of 2015 has been filed assailing the cancellation of the joint patta granted to the petitioners and seeking quashment of the same, W.P. No.19401/20 has been filed by the very same petitioners, putting in issue the consequential order passed by the District Collector, Tiruvallur, in and by which permission to enter upon the lands, including the lands of the petitioners have been granted to the Board and prayer has been made to forbear the Board from entering into the said lands of the petitioners and also for delivery of possession of lands to the petitioners.
5. W.P. No.15940 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner to forbear the Board from entering into the petitioner’s lands and doing any construction/developmental activity pending adjudication of the suit in O.S. No.33 of 2018 on the file of the 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur and also without following the due process of law.
6. C.R.P. Nos.1682 to 1684 of 2020 have been filed by the Board to strike out the plaint filed in O.S. Nos.33 of 2019, 126 of 2019 an 756 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur and Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee respectively.
7. Vast extent of lands in and around the subject lands were held by different individuals, who had sold the same during the period 1945 and 1948 to certain other persons, which were then alienated by way of sale to one M/s.Noombal Farms Ltd. In turn, the said company alienated the same by way of sale to one E.Shanmuga Nayakar and upon his death, the lands stood vested in his legal heirs, who had, thereafter, sold portion of the land in Survey No.22/1 to an extent of 40 cents in favour of the petitioner
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the subject land was classified as 'Anadheenam' and vested with the Government under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove that the subject lands are ryoti lands and have vested with the Government under the Ryotwari Act, 1948, in order to obtai....
The jurisdiction of civil courts to adjudicate title claims is not ousted by administrative proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act, and the rejection of a plaint must be based solely on the plaint'....
Land granted under Inams Abolition Act confers ownership, which cannot be revoked without due process; arbitrary state action is unlawful.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once the Settlement Officer's order reached finality, issuing Patta for the same land on different grounds is not sustainable in the eye of la....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.