Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
B.Devarajan – Appellant
Versus
Director, Directorate of Land Survey and Settlement, Land Survey and Settlement Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdictional limitation for revisions under the act. (Para 1 , 8 , 12 , 19 , 46) |
| 2. finality of ryotwari patta issuance. (Para 2 , 4 , 20 , 42) |
| 3. challenge to show cause notice based on jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 13) |
| 4. issue of patta and its legal finality. (Para 18) |
| 5. suo moto review limitations and authority discretion. (Para 29 , 34 , 36 , 48) |
| 6. jurisdiction for review under section 5(2) is contested. (Para 37) |
| 7. outcome of writ petition due to jurisdictional issues over appeal. (Para 47) |
| 8. writ petition allowed, quashing the show cause notice. (Para 50) |
ORDER :
J. Sathya Narayana Prasad, J.
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned suo moto revisional proceedings of the first respondent herein under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 23/1963) emanating for the issuance of impugned Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2018 in his proceedings in E2/1734/2018(3) culminating into consecutive Notice in E2/1734/2018(3) dated 31.01.2019 and quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioners is that originally P.Govindaswamy and 34 others
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.
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 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....
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....
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....
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
