IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
V. Kamalakannan - Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar Thirukazhukundram, Kancheepuram & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 20949 & 29241 of 2014 & 2765 of 2020 & W.M.P. No. 3217 of 2020
Decided On : 21-09-2022
Patta - Land Ownership - Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Section 12, 13, 14, 5(2), 7 - The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner seeking patta for lands belonging to his foster father, Late M.Vedachala Mudaliar, which were taken over by the Government under the Act, 1948. The court held that the petitioner's claim for patta was barred by limitation as per Rule 2(a) of the Act, and the Assistant Settlement Officer had no power to grant patta beyond the specified time limit. The court also upheld the Commissioner of Land Administration's power to issue instructions and to review and cancel orders of the Settlement Officer. The court found that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner had not claimed any right over the lands during the settlement proceedings, and the petitioner's belated claim for patta was not sustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought patta for lands belonging to his foster father, Late M.Vedachala Mudaliar, which were taken over by the Government under the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The petitioner claimed that his father was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands and had been paying statutory charges. The petitioner's claim for patta was based on his adoption as the son of Vedachala Mudaliar and the subsequent devolution of the properties on him after the death of his adoptive mother. The Assistant Settlement Officer granted patta in favor of the petitioner, but the Commissioner of Land Administration cancelled the patta, citing the bar of limitation and the lack of pre-existing right over the lands by the petitioner's predecessors-in-title.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for patta was barred by limitation as per Rule 2(a) of the Act, and the Assistant Settlement Officer had no power to grant patta beyond the specified time limit. The court upheld the Commissioner of Land Administration's power to issue instructions and to review and cancel orders of the Settlement Officer. The court also noted that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner had not claimed any right over the lands during the settlement proceedings, and the petitioner's belated claim for patta was not sustainable.
Issues: The main issues were the petitioner's claim for patta being barred by limitation, the power of the Assistant Settlement Officer to grant patta beyond the specified time limit, and the Commissioner of Land Administration's authority to issue instructions and review and cancel orders of the Settlement Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's claim for patta was barred by limitation as per Rule 2(a) of the Act, and the Assistant Settlement Officer had no power to grant patta beyond the specified time limit. The court also upheld the Commissioner of Land Administration's power to issue instructions and to review and cancel orders of the Settlement Officer. The court found that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner had not claimed any right over the lands during the settlement proceedings, and the petitioner's belated claim for patta was not sustainable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions filed by the petitioner seeking patta for the lands, upholding the cancellation of the patta by the Commissioner of Land Administration and rejecting the petitioner's claim for patta based on the bar of limitation and lack of pre-existing right over the lands by the petitioner's predecessors-in-title.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: W.P. No.20949 of 2014 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for all the records relating to the impugned order Na.Ka.2610/2012/Aa1 dated 29.10.2013 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same insofar as it relates to the lands of the petitioner covered under patta Nos.921, 1412 and 1418 of Poonthandalam and Neikuppi Villages, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District and consequently direct the 1st respondent herein to restore all the Taluk and Village revenue records pertaining to the lands of the petitioner covered under patta Nos.921, 1412 and 1418 of Poonthandalam and Neikuppi Villages, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District as they were on 28.10.2013, i.e., immediately prior to the passing of the above said impugned order.
W.P. No.29241 of 2014 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned communication D.O. Lr.No.Rc.K1/36249/06 dated 14.02.2011 issued by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, the first respondent herein, and quash the same.
W.P. No.2765 of 2020 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Ref.No.K/1/16090/2013 dated 26.12.2019 and quash the same except para 25 (i) of the said impugned order.)
Common Order:
1. Assailing the deletion of the name of the petitioner in the patta by the Tahsildar upon the directions of the Commissioner of Land Administration and the subsequent communication of the District Collector resulting in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration cancelling the ryotwari patta granted to the petitioner, the present petitions have been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that lands measuring 10.10.5 hectares and 17.77 hectares in Neikuppi Village and 5.36 hectares in Poonthandalam Village of Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, totally measuring 33.23 ½ hectares belonged to his foster father, Late M.Vedachala Mudaliar, who had acquired the said lands by way of court auction held by the Sub Court, Chengalpet, vide Sale Certificate No.LA 2994/39 dated 28.11.1939 and duly registered with SRO, Thirukazhukundram as MP No.482 of 1940 dated 17.5.1940. It is the further case of the petitioner that even since the said purchase, the pattas, having mutated, stood in the name of his father and that his father was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and was paying the kist and other statutory charges with regard to the said lands.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was adopted as the son of Rajeswari, wife of Vedachala Mudaliar on 7.9.1959 vide Document No.12/1959, after the demise of Vedachala Mudaliar, who died intestate on 10.4.1957. The said Rajeswari died intestate on 19.3.1981, whereupon the properties devolved on the petitioner.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that by enactment of Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, (for short ‘Act, 1948’) the lands of Vedahala Mudaliar were taken over by the Government and inspite of the fact that the SLR indicated the name of Vedachala Mudaliar as the owner of the lands, the lands were wrongly classified as ‘Anadheenam’, without any reference to the said Vedachala Mudaliar. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the revenue records the name of Vedachala Mudaliar was rounded and the lands were shown as ‘Anadheenam’ and upon coming to know of the same, the petitioner has been incessantly approaching the revenue authorities to make the necessary modification entries in the revenue records and issue patta in his name. Inspite of representations sent by the petitioner and also without considering the overwhelming records that unerringly pointed the petitioner as
The court reaffirmed that to obtain patta outside the scope of the Abolition Act, continuous possession must be proven, and unsubstantiated claims based on fraudulent documentation are untenable.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the integrity of legal processes, ensuring compliance with court orders, and preventing manipulation of legal procee....
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 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.