Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
R.Muniyandi (a) Chandran – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Land Administration – Respondent
ORDER :
N.Anand Venkatesh, J.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 27.11.2021 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the patta in respect of the property in Survey No.33/4B measuring acres 8.28 cents situated at Padiyanallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District to its original position as per the proceedings of the fifth respondent dated 19.9.2021.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is as follows :
(i) The properties in S.No.33 measuring an extent of acres 34.54 cents, Padiyanallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District were originally owned by one Mr.Venkatagopal Rao. He died in 1943 leaving behind him his wife and two sons as surviving legal heirs. Thereafter, the said properties were subdivided into S.Nos.33/3 and 33/4 measuring acres 16.44 cents and acres 18.10 cents respectively. Patta was also issued in favour of the wife of the said Mr.Venkatagopal Rao.
(ii) Later, the said properties were sold by t
Suo motu revision powers cannot be exercised when an appeal remedy exists under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
The Director of Survey and Settlement lacks jurisdiction to initiate suo moto proceedings under Section 5(2) for an appealable order, as per Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates Act.
The Revenue Divisional Officer exceeded jurisdiction in cancelling a ryothwari patta beyond the statutory sixty-day appeal period established under Section 7(2) of the Act.
The authority cannot invoke suo motu powers to cancel orders when an appeal remedy exists and must act within the prescribed limitation period.
Suo-motu powers under Section 6(c) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act cannot be exercised when an appeal is available, thereby making the proceedings illegal and void due to jurisdictional overreach a....
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....
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
