A decree related to evacuee property is unenforceable if necessary parties are not included in proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

State represented by District Collector, Krishnagiri and three others preferred the present intra-court appeal to assail the writ order dated 13.11.2024 in W.P.No.32901 of 2024.

2. The respondent herein preferred the writ proceedings, seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri Taluk to issue patta in the name of the respondent/writ petitioner in respect of properties bearing (i) Punjai Survey No.87/6 to an extent of 0.32 cents, (ii) Punjai S.No.88/2 to an extent of 1.66 cents, (iii) Nanjai S.No.91/3 to an extent of 0.11 cents and (iv) Nanjai Survey No.91/10 to an extent of 0.20 cents, in total to an extent of 2 acres 29 cents situate at Kondappanayanapalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and District.

3. The subject property described in the writ proceedings was assigned to the respondent/writ petitioner on 14.08.1980 and D-Card assignment patta was issued by the Special Tahsildar. The respondent was in enjoyment of the subject property and paid 'necessary taxes and charges'. While so, a show cause notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri on 22.09.1983. Subsequently, an eviction notice was also issued by the Tahsildar on 02.05.1984 under Section 6 of The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905). The respondent has instituted a civil suit in O.S. No.212 of 1984 for declaration that the eviction notice dated 02.05.1984 is null and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. An ex parte decree was passed in favour of the respondent. Based on the ex parte decree dated 21.12.1987, the respondent filed an application seeking patta. Since no patta has been granted, the writ petition came to be instituted. The writ Court allowed the writ petition. Thus, the State preferred the present intra-court appeal.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State would mainly contend that subject property is classified as 'evacuee property'. Thus, the property vests with the custodian appointed by the Government of India. The custodian of the evacuee property has not been made as a party either in the suit or in the writ proceedings. That apart, the respondent was an assignee and conditions are imposed in the assignment order. The authorities, during enquiry, found that the respondent is an ineligible person and by invoking the provisions of Revenue Standing Order No.15, show cause notice was issued to cancel the assignment. Instead of submitting explanation, the respondent has chosen to file a civil suit. The ex parte decree therefore would not provide any right for the respondent to secure patta from the hands of the revenue authorities.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose by stating that show cause notice was issued to cancel the assignment vide proceedings dated 22.09.1983. Subsequently, an eviction notice was issued by Tahsildar. The said eviction notice dated 02.05.1984 came to be challenged by way of a civil suit. The suit was decreed ex parte and the decree became final. Thus, the application was filed for grant of patta. The writ Court has considered these facts and allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the present appeal is to be rejected.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute between the parties that the assignment was granted in favour of the respondent. Pursuant to the assignment, the respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the property. Since the authorities found that the respondent is an ineligible person for grant of assignment, under the Revenue Standing Order, show cause notice was issued vide proceedings dated 22.09.1983 affording opportunity to the respondent to submit her explanation. The show cause notice dated 13.09.1983 would show that assignee was not residing in the village and she was not in possession of the assigned land. That apart, husband of the assignee is having patta lands. When the family is owning lands, m