Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH
R. Jayachandran – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Revenue Departmen – Respondent
ORDER :
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 20.01.2023.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 15.03.1971, the father of the petitioner purchased the subject property from one Perumal Naicker through a registered sale deed. Thereafter, Settlement Officer issued a notice dated 24.01.1973 under Act 30 of 1963 and through proceedings dated 24.12.1999, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, primarily issued patta in favour of the father of the petitioners. Pursuant to the same, on 10.07.2000, the father of the petitioners executed a sale deed in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu, which was registered as Document No.1577 of 2000 and a portion of the property was conveyed for the purpose of a inner ring road. Thereafter, a claim was made over the property by filing a suit before the competent Civil Court seeking for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession by a third party and this suit was also dismissed.
3. The further case of the petitioners is that a show cause notice came to be issued by the 2nd respondent dated 21.06.2004 in exercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 6 (c)
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 authority cannot invoke suo motu powers to cancel orders when an appeal remedy exists and must act within the prescribed limitation period.
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 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 Joint Collector is competent to exercise power under BSO 15(18) and deal with the issues regarding assignment of land. The power under BSO 15(18) can be exercised at any time in view of the langu....
The Deputy Collector's notice issued beyond the one-year limit for calling records under the Tenancy Act was void, emphasizing the necessity of application of mind in such proceedings.
The court ruled that while the Revenue Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to act suo motu, the Joint Collector's revisional powers were valid in addressing fraudulent claims over government land.
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
