Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, J
Arulmighu Kalyana Venkataramanaswami Koil – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Land Administration – Respondent
ORDER :
(N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.)
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 09.07.2020 and for a direction to forbear the respondents from interfering with the lands belonging to the petitioner measuring 9.761 acres, 11.40 acres and 9.98 acres in Survey Nos.24, 25 and 124 respectively at Kaliyanoor Village, Namakkal District.
2.The case of the petitioner temple is that they are the owners of the following properties:
| Survey No. | Extent (Hectares) | Extent (Acres) |
| 24 | 3.95.0 | 9.761 |
| 25 | 4.61.5 | 11.40 |
| 124 | 4.04.0 | 9.98 |
3.In the year 1972, the Settlement Tahsildar, Salem conducted an enquiry and passed an order to the effect that Kaliyanoor Agraharam is an Inam Estate which was notified and taken over by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.781 dated 12.03.1965 under Act 26 of 1963 . The Settlement Tahsildar in his proceedings dated 30.06.1972 granted Ryotwari Patta under Section12 read with Section 10(1)(i) of Act 26 of 1963 in favour of the petitioner temple. By virtue of the same proceedings, it was declared that the subject lands belongs to the temple and accordingly, Ryotwari Patta was granted under Act 26 of 1963 .
4.The above order passed by the Settlement
The District Collector lacks jurisdiction to negate the title granted by the Inam Abolition Tribunal, reaffirming the finality of the Settlement Tahsildar's order.
The court held that the petitioners could not claim rights to land classified as Government Poramboke due to the suppression of a material rectification deed, emphasizing the finality of orders under....
Appellant has miserably failed to establish a cogent link as to who were his predecessor in title and merely stating that patta has been granted would not be sufficient and going by such statement
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 cannot adjudicate title disputes; they assess claims based on prima facie evidence. The petitioner failed to substantiate her claim, leading to the dismissal of her petition.
Revenue Authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes, requiring resolution in civil court; decisions must include sufficient reasoning to uphold property rights.
Authority must avoid unjust cancellation of property rights without valid reasons, emphasizing the necessity for resolution of title disputes in civil courts as mandated by law.
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
