T. K. Baby Ammal v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its District Collector, Sethuvachary, Vellore
2013-08-06
K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU
body2013
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court in dismissing the execution petition filed in E.P.No.16/2007 in O.S.No.221 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vaniyambadi. 2. The petitioner as the plaintiff filed the above said suit seeking for declaration and for mandatory injunction to grant patta in respect of the suit property. The suit was decreed on 26.10.2004, whereby the title over the suit property is declared in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner herein. A decree for mandatory injunction also was granted directing the defendants therein to re-classify the subject matter land as revenue land and consequently to grant patta for the same in favour of the plaintiff. The petitioner filed the above said execution petition for execution of the said decree. It is opposed by the respondents herein that the decree granted is not executable in view of the order passed by this Court, whereby the Government was directed to take possession of the poromboke lands and also directing the Civil Courts from passing any order with regard to poromboke land. The Court below rejected the application simply by saying that as per the Policy of the Government it is not permissible to change the character of the land. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present land, the subject matter in the suit is measuring 1.16 acres out of 3.80 acres at Survey No.81/6 and already patta was granted in respect of 2.64 acres out of the said 3.80 acres in favour of the father of the plaintiff in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in S.A.No.2210 of 1977 dated 27.03.1981. Thus it is her contention that the petitioner is entitled to get patta in respect of the remaining extent of land when the same was purchased by her on 25.12.1985 from the predecessors in title. It is further contended by the petitioner that the defendants never appeared before the Court inspite of due notice. Only when the execution petition is filed they came and opposed the application by contending that the same is not executable. According to the learned counsel the said G.O. referred is applicable to water bodies and not to the maichel poromboke land. 5.
Only when the execution petition is filed they came and opposed the application by contending that the same is not executable. According to the learned counsel the said G.O. referred is applicable to water bodies and not to the maichel poromboke land. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the decree is not executable in view of the specific order passed by this Court in writ petitions W.P.Nos.19388/26, etc., dated 22.07.2009. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the Court below show that it has not discussed any of the facts and circumstances and rival contentions raised by the parties. The Court below has rejected the execution petition only by holding that as per the Policy of the Government the change of character of the land is not permissible. In my considered view the order passed by the Court below does not discuss any of the facts and circumstances of the case by permitting the parties to let in evidence in support of their respective claims. Therefore it is totally a non-speaking order which cannot be sustained. Consequently I set aside the order passed by the Court below and remit the matter back for fresh consideration of E.P.No.16 of 2007 on merits and in accordance with law. It is needless to say that the respective parties are entitled to let in their supportive evidence to prove their claims before the execution court. After affording opportunity of hearing to both sides, the Executing Court will pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.