Petitioner failed to establish timely claims and lineage rights for land ownership, justifying dismissal of appeals.

JUDGMENT :

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

1. The appellant herein had challenged the order of the revenue authorities rejecting her request to change the classification of the land from assessed dry waste to Thaneer Pandal Maniyam and issue ryotwari patta to the petitioner in respect of the land in Survey No.50 to an extent of 9.33 acres situated in Dharmathupatti Village, Uchapatty Panchayat, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District in WP(MD).No.12245 of 2015. This writ petition came to be dismissed on 10.06.2019 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. This writ petitioner had preferred the Review Application (MD).No.91 of 2019 as against the said order. The review application came to be dismissed on 18.05.2020. Challenging these two orders, the present writ appeals have been filed.

2.Since the issue involved in both these writ appeals are intertwined, they are tagged together and a common order is being passed.

(A).Facts leading to the filing of the present writ appeals are as follows:

3.According to the writ petitioner, an extent of 9.33 acres in Survey No.50 of Tharmathupatti Village, Uchapatty Panchayat, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District was originally owned by his forefather namely Palanipandaram. According to the petitioner, the land was given to his forefather namely Kuppusamy @ Thalamuthupillai for rendering Thaneer Pandal Maniyam service. It was contended that the said service is being continued even today. In the Inam Fair Register, the name of his forefather was incorporated. When Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963) came into force, an individual rendering services was entitled to get ryothwari patta. Since his forefather was an illiterate man, he had not applied for the same in time. However, G.O.Ms.No.1300 Revenue Department dated 30.04.1971 provided for grant of patta outside the scope of the Act, if any application was made to the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer.

4.According to the writ petitioner, based upon Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 and Act 30 of 1963 and in the light of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1300 Revenue Department dated 30.04.1971, they had applied before Tahsildar, Tirumangalam on 11.03.2011. The Tahsildar by his proceedings dated 13.07.2012 recommended for grant of patta for an subdivision No.50/2 for an extent of 3.46.0 hectors ( excluding 0.31.5 acres in Survey No.50/1) with a condition that it should be recorded in the name of the writ petitioner as Thaneer Pandal Maniyam and she should not alienate or encumber the property. The recommendation of the Tahsildar was not accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti and he rejected the said request for grant of patta by his proceedings dated 30.01.2013.

5.The writ petitioner had preferred an appeal before District Revenue Officer, Madurai who confirmed the order of Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti by his proceedings dated 26.07.2013. The petitioner had preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration. She also confirmed the order of the other revenue officials by her proceedings dated 25.05.2015. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had preferred WP(MD).No.12245 of 2015 which was dismissed by the writ Court on 10.06.2019. The petitioner had preferred a review petition in Review Petition(MD).No.91 of 2019 and the same was also dismissed on 18.05.2020 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court to establish her rights. Challenging these two orders, the present writ appeals have been filed.

(B).Submissions of the counsels appear