Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
K. Krishnan & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 16792 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011
Decided On : 21-09-2022
Writ Petition - Land Dispute - Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30/1963) - Section 8(1), Section 10, Section 25, Section 30 - The court discussed the issuance of Patta under Act 30/1963, the settlement proceedings, and the finality of the orders. It highlighted the hierarchy of appellate and revisional remedies and emphasized 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 law.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges the order of the first respondent dated 25.04.2011, which cancelled the order granting Patta to the petitioners under Act 30/1963 for an extent of 13.30 cents in S.No.281/3. The petitioners' title is traceable from 1915, and they had purchased the property during the years 1970-1973. A Civil Suit concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to S.No.281/3, and the defendant had perfected the title by adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of the third respondent granting Patta was not valid in the eye of law, as the Settlement Officer's order had reached finality and the appeal remedy was lost. The court dismissed the writ petition but allowed the petitioners to file an appropriate civil suit for declaration to establish their title before a competent Civil Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the order granting Patta under Act 30/1963, the finality of the settlement proceedings, and the petitioners' entitlement to establish their rights in a Civil Court despite the settlement proceedings reaching finality.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held 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 law. It emphasized that the hierarchy of appellate and revisional remedies provided under Act 30/1963 must be adhered to.
Final Decision: The writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent was dismissed, but the petitioners were allowed to file an appropriate civil suit for declaration to establish their title before a competent Civil Court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 25.04.2011 in Rc.K1/28296/2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to make necessary sub division as per patta issued in favour of the petitioners by the 3rd respondent in his order dated 20.10.2010.)
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 25.04.2011, in and by which, the first respondent has cancelled the order passed by the third respondent, Assistant Settlement Officer granting Patta measuring an extent of 13.30 cents under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 30/1963') in respect of S.No.281/3 to the petitioners.
2. The brief facts culled out from the above writ petition is as follows:
(i) The petitioners' predecessor-in-title are the owners of 14 cents out of 20 cents of land in S.No.281/3 of Vishnu Kanchee village at Kanchipuram District. The title is traceable from the year 1915. According to the petitioners, the land in Town S.Nos.235/10, 11, 12 and 13 measuring an extent of 36 cents in Kanchipuram Town belongs to the petitioners and the land in question in S.No.281/3 measuring an extent of 14 cents adjoining the said land was purchased by the petitioners to make the entire land in one block.
(ii) The petitioners have got a rice mill under valid licence and running the same for the past so many years including the drying yard and open space which are all available in the land measuring an extent of 50 Cents.
(iii) Originally the property in question was purchased by one Sheshadri and Munusamy Naidu in the year 1915 and thereafter the said Munusamy Naidu purchased the share of Sheshadri under registered Sale Deed dated 17.11.1919, in document No.6070 of 1919 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kanchipuram.
(iv) During the period between 1915 and 1935 the said Munusamy Naidu has plotted out the said lands and sold it to various persons. What was left at the hands of the said Munusamy Naidu is 42 cents in T.S.No.235/1 and 20 cents in S.No.281/3 of Vishnu Kanchee village, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition.
(v) Thereafter, the property devolved in favour of Govindammal, wife of Munusamy Naidu under a will dated 20.12.1935. The said Govindamma sold the property in favour of one Shanmugam under a registered Sale Deed dated 04.09.1965.
(vi) Thereafter, the said Shanmugam sold 4.5 cents each to Annamalai Mudaliar and Subathirai Ammal under two sale deeds on 06.10.1965 and 06.09.1965 respectively. Thereafter, the second petitioner under a registered Sale Deed dated 12.09.1970, purchased from Annamalai Mudaliar an extent of 12 cents in T.S.No.235/1 and 4.55 cents in S.No.281/3 of Vishnu Kanchee village. By another registered Sale Deed dated 15.11.1973, the second petitioner purchased from Subathirai Ammal an extent of 12 cents in T.S.No.235/1 and 4.55 cents in S.No.281/3.
(vii) Further, the petitioners by a registered Deed of Exchange dated 22.02.1971 obtained 12 cents in T.S.No.235/1 and 4.2 cents in S.No.281/3 of Vishnu Kanchee village. By another Deed of Sale dated 14.4.1971, the first petitioner Mr.K.Krishnan purchased a part of the exchanged property of S.No.235/1 and 4.2 cents in S.No.281/3 from Shanmugam also. Accordingly, the petitioners have become the owner of 13.3 cents in S.No.281/3 of Vishnu Kanchee village.
(viii) The said village was originally an Inam village covered under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act) 1963 (Act 30/1963), while making the survey, under proceedings in S.L.R.P.D/A W/O 10 in S.R.2346/67 M.M.I.A./Act/KPM dated 10.08.1967, the lands in S.No.281/3 measuring an extent of 20 acres owned and in possession of the petitioners were wrongly included wi
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....
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 court ruled that to obtain ryotwari patta under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act, the claimant must demonstrate pre-existing ownership rights, which were not established in this case.
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 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 High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity.
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
