Back
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, P. B. BALAJI
District Revenue Officer, Namakkal – Appellant
Versus
K. Kulanthaivel – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 03.12.2009 in W.P.No.68/2005.)
Common Judgment:
D. Krishnakumar, J.
1. The respondents 1 & 2 in W.P.No.68 of 2005 are the appellants in W.A.No.1816 of 2011. The 3rd respondent in W.P.No.68 of 2005 is the appellant in W.A.No.762 of 2011. They aggrieved by the allowing of the aforesaid writ petition, in and by which the order of the second appellant dated 20.12.2004 was set aside, restoring the order of the first appellant dated 27.05.1998 granting ryotwari patta in favour of the writ petitioner / first respondent in W.A.No.1816 of 2011, had filed these writ appeals.
2. Facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals are as under. For the sake of brevity, the array of parties in W.A.No.1816 of 2011 is adopted.
2.1. The first respondent / petitioner's mother, one Pavayee Ammal, purchased an extent of 7.33 acres of land out of a total extent of 8.87 acres of land in Singalanthapuram Village in Rasipuram Taluk under Sale Deed dated 11.06.1995. The lands in question wer
The court confirmed that claims for ryotwari pattas under the Tamil Nadu Estates Act must adhere to strict statutory limitation periods, establishing that earlier rights lapsed and warrants dismissal....
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....
Point of Law- Section 11 (a) of the Act it is clear that every ryot who claims for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Act has to fulfill the following requirements.(i) the land claim....
Suo motu revision powers cannot be exercised when an appeal remedy exists under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
Civil Courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate land classification disputes under the Estate Abolition Act despite administrative orders, emphasizing the necessity for factual determination on ryoti ....
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
