Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
Zuari Cement Limited, Represented by its Plant Head, Y. Nagendraprasad, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, after calling for the records from the first respondent dated nil.07.2021 passed in Na.Ka.No.886/2016/A1 and quash the same.)
1. The writ on hand has been instituted to quash the order passed by the first respondent in proceedings dated nil.07.2021, directing the Revenue Authorities to cancel the patta granted in favour of the writ petitioner-Company and to grant patta in favour of Tmt.Annalakshmi and Mr.Natesan.
2. The petitioner is a Cement Company purchased certain extent of lands by way of various Sale Deeds and through Government leases. The total extent of the Plant is 28 Acres and 85 Cents. The petitioner-Company states that they are in possession of the subject property and had mutated the revenue records in their name.
3. The petitioner-Company has established Grinding Unit in the entire extent, which is under dispute before the respondents 1 and 2, had been purchased by the petitioner-Company from Mr.S.Durai and others viz., Tmt.Nagammal, Tmt.Parvathyammal and Mr.Natesan.
4. During the year 2013, the third respondent Mr.Ulaganathan filed a petition before
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the Revenue Divisional Officer's decision to cancel the patta granted to the petitioner and grant it to the third respondent based ....
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....
Revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed questions of title to immovable property or issue/cancel patta when a civil suit concerning the same property title is pending bef....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice and the prescribed method and procedure when exercising statutory powers.
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 petitioner failed to exhaust alternate remedies regarding the cancellation of patta, and prior decrees confirming respondents' title and possession were determinative.
The genuineness of documents submitted by the petitioners and the need for the 5th respondent to consider the observations made by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad.
Point of law: none of the petitioners approached this Court with clean hands and thereby committed as many errors as possible in making requests, payment of land revenue etc. Such an issue cannot be ....
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
