Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.
S.I. Basheer Ahamed – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its The District Collector, Collectorate, Tiruchirapalli and Ors. – Respondents
S.T.A(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD) Nos.5930 and 5932 of 2022 and 17026 of 2023
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Tamilnadu Inam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26/1963 - Tamilnadu Fixation Assessment and Freehold Lands Act, 1973 (Act 31 of 1973) - Dismissal of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals regarding claims over inam land - Appellant claimed ownership based on historical grants, but the Tribunal found the claim unsustainable due to lack of proof of lineage and payment of quit rent, and the land's classification as government property. (Paras 7, 11, 32)
(B) Inam Land Claims - The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish entitlement and lineage, particularly in cases of historical grants. The absence of timely claims and supporting documentation undermines the legitimacy of the claim. (Paras 11, 32)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed ownership of land in Sengulam Village based on historical grants from the British era, asserting continuous possession until government classification as porambokku in 1965. The Tribunal dismissed the claim due to lack of evidence and belatedness.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal confirmed the land's classification as government property and dismissed the appellant's claims as baseless, citing lack of proof of lineage and payment of quit rent.
Issues: The main issues were whether the courts correctly concluded the land's classification under the Inam Abolition Act and whether the appellant's claims were timely and substantiated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant failed to prove lineage and timely claims, and the land's classification as government property was valid, thus dismissing the appeals.
Result: Appeals dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
In INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 and INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2012, the Principal Subordinate Judge cum Tribunal constituted under Tamilnadu Inam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act , 26/1963 along with the Cross Appeal No.63 of 2011 in INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 passed the common order dated 28.07.2021 dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Cross Appeal.
2.Both the Inam CMAs were preferred by one S.I.Basheer Ahamed, S/o Sheik Ibrahim(inamdar). The Cross Appeal No.63 of 2011 in Inam C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 was by Ayisha Parveen Bijili, Fathima Sheras Bijili, Arifa FArshama Bijili, Jiyavur Rahaman Bijili and Hussain Bijili ( family members of G.S.Bijili, a rival claimant- herein after to be referred as private individuals).
3.In INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2007, the District Collector, Trichy, Defence Estate Officer and the Private individuals are arrayed as respondents.
4.In INAM C.M.A.No:1 of 2012, the Assistant Settlement Officer( North), Thasildar, Trichy, the Trichy District Jaggery & Jaggery Partner Merchants Association along with Private individuals are arrayed as respondents.
5.While S.T.A.No.2 of 2022 is directed against the Order dated 28.07.2021 in INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge cum Tribunal constituted under Tamilnadu Inam Estate ( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26/1963 by the appellant Mr.S.I.Basheer Ahamed, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2007. The relief sought in this STA is to set aside the impugned order of confirming the order of the District Collector dated 04.07.2007 and to direct the District Collector, Trichy to fix assessment under the Tamilnadu Fixation Assessment and Free hold lands Act, 1973 ( Act 31 of 1973) in respect of land measuring 407.71 acres located in Trichy District, Tiruchi Taluk, Trichy Corporation Limits, formerly known as Sengulam Village and now as K.Abishekapuram Village in Ward L., Block Numbers 19, 20 and 21.
6.Whereas S.T.A.No.3 of 2022 is directed against the order dated 28.07.2021 in INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2012 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge cum Tribunal constituted under Tamilnadu Inam Estate ( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26/1963 by Mr.S.I.Basheer Ahamed, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his INAM C.M.A.No.1 of 2012. The relief sought in this STA to set aside the impugned order confirming the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 29.09.2011 and to direct the first respondent/ Assistant Settlement Officer, Trichy to fix assessment under the Tamilnadu Fixation Assessment and Freehold Lands Act , 1973 ( Act 31/1973), in respect of land measuring 2-16-86 Hectare, in SF.No: 60/1 and land measuring 16-60-0 Hectare in SF.No:60/3 located in Trichy District and Taluk, in Sengulam Village.
7.The substantial questions of law raised in both the STA are common and it reads as below:-
1) Whether the Learned Courts below are right in coming to conclusion of the Inam land granted to the petitioner’s predecessors.
2) Whether the Learned Courts had properly considered that the petitioner lands comes under the purview of the Inam Abolition Act, 1963.
8. Mr.S.I.Bhasheer Ahamed, who is the common appellant in both these STA claims that land measuring 406.7 acres at Sengulam Village, Trichy District was granted as inam to Khaja Maruf Srishti @ Khaja Abubakkar by the Britishers in the year 1770. The same was confirmed through Title Deed No.814 dated 02.09.1864. The appellant is the descendant of the original inamdhar. He claims that his family was enjoying the property continuously without any hindrance, till the year 1965. After Act 26/1963 came into force, without any notice, the Government has classified the land as Government Porambokku. When the unilateral absorption of the land by the Government came to the notice and knowledge of his predecessors, they started giving representations to the government authorities with documents to prove that the land in dispute already declared as fre
The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish entitlement and lineage in inam land claims, particularly when historical grants are involved.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956 to the grant of Ryotwari patta for pre-settlement Inams, overriding the provisions of the Esta....
Point of law: Classification of the land is also an issue which can be dealt with by the survey officer under the provisions of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1897.
The court established that jurisdictional overreach by administrative authorities can invalidate their orders, necessitating adherence to procedural fairness.
Land granted under Inams Abolition Act confers ownership, which cannot be revoked without due process; arbitrary state action is unlawful.
Registered sale deeds and possession establish land ownership unless proven otherwise; the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
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
