Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3281 (MAD)

Kalyani v. KR VR Veerappa Chettiar

2014-09-12

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. This Special Tribunal Appeal has been filed, before this Court, against the order and decreetal order, dated 08.12.2006, in Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2004, on the file of Inam Abolition Tribunal, Sivagangai. The respondents 1 and 6 in Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2014 are the appellants herein. 2. The Inam Abolition Tribunal, Sivagangai, (herein after referred to as the 'Tribunal'), had passed the impugned order, dated 08.12.2006, allowing the appeal and remanding the matter back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai, to have a full-fledged enquiry, in respect of the issues that had arisen for its decision. The appeal, in Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2004, had been filed, under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1963. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The said appeal had been filed against the order, dated 01.09.1983, passed by the third respondent, namely, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, in respect of Survey Nos.65/16 and 65/17 of Kalanivasal Village, in Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. 3. Pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court, dated 15.12.2005, in S.T.A.(M.D).No.1 of 2005 and S.T.P.(M.D).No.1 of 2005, this Court had remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the aspect as to whether the appellant, in Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2004, namely, Kr.Vr.Veerappa Chettiar, could be considered as a person aggrieved, as per Section 12(2) of the Act, in respect of the property to which pattas had been granted in favour of one Kalyani and Nagappan, who are the appellants before this Court. Based on the submissions made and in view of the documents filed on behalf of the parties concerned, the Tribunal had arrived at the conclusion that Kr.Vr.Veerappa Chettiar, is an aggrieved party, as per Section 12(2) of the Act. Having held so, the Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai, to conduct a full-fledged enquiry, based on the documentary evidence available. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present appeal, before this Court. 4. Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, had submitted that the Tribunal had passed the impugned order, dated 08.12.2006, mechanically, without proper application of mind. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present appeal, before this Court. 4. Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, had submitted that the Tribunal had passed the impugned order, dated 08.12.2006, mechanically, without proper application of mind. The directions issued by this Court, dated 15.11.2005, made in S.T.A(MD).No.1 of 2005, while disposing of the appeal, in Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2004, had not been taken into consideration, by the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel had further submitted that the appellants ought to have seen that they had raised the issue relating to locus standi of Kr.Vr.Veerappa Chettiar, the first respondent in the present appeal, in filing the Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2004, challenging the order, dated 01.09.1983, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, in SR.No.10/Karaikudi/1983. It had been stated that Kr.Vr.Veerappa Chettiar had no interest, whatsoever, in the land in question and therefore, he had no right to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, granting patta in favour of the appellants. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that Kr.Vr.Veerappa Chettiar had no right in the lands in question, in view of the fact that his father had sold five acres of land, which had been claimed by him, as per the judgment and decree, in the partition suit, in O.S.No.102 of 1946. He had further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have remanded the matter back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai, for conducting a fresh enquiry, contrary to the spirit of the judgment of this Court, made in S.T.A.(M.D).No.1 of 2005. 6. Per contra, Mr.R.Thirugnanasambantham, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are devoid of merits. The issuance of pattas, by the Assistant Settlement Officer, in favour of the appellants, in respect of the lands in question, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. The said authority had not followed the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, before issuing the pattas in favour of the appellants. No notice had been issued, by the authority concerned, as contemplated under the provisions of the said Act, before issuing the pattas in favour of the appellants. The said authority had not followed the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, before issuing the pattas in favour of the appellants. No notice had been issued, by the authority concerned, as contemplated under the provisions of the said Act, before issuing the pattas in favour of the appellants. He had further submitted that pattas, had been issued, in respect of a vast extent of lands of over 300 acres. 7. The learned counsel had further submitted that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai, had issued pattas in favour of a number of persons, in respect of the lands, having an extent of more than 300 acres, without following the procedures prescribed under the provisions of the Act. Further, no opportunity had been given to the first respondent before the pattas had been issued in favour of the appellants, even though the first respondent had certain rights in the lands in question. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly held that the first respondent was a person aggrieved, as per Section 12(2) of the Act. It had further rightly remanded the matter back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai, for conducting a fresh enquiry, with regard to the issues that had arisen for its consideration. The order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the directions issued by this Court, by its judgment, dated 15.12.2005, made in S.T.A.(M.D).No.1 of 2005. As such, the present appeal filed by the appellants is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 8. Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandiyan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 had submitted that serious irregularities have been committed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai, while issuing pattas, in respect of a vast extent of lands in the area concerned, including the lands in Survey Nos.65/16 and 65/17 and therefore, an enquiry has been ordered and the same is pending. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is noted that the Tribunal had passed the impugned order, dated 08.12.2006, in Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2004, holding that Kr.Vr.Veerappa Chettiar, the first respondent herein, is an aggrieved person, as per Section 12(2) of the Act. The Tribunal had come to the said conclusion based on the documentary evidence that had been placed before it. The Tribunal had come to the said conclusion based on the documentary evidence that had been placed before it. Therefore, the Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai, for conducting a fresh enquiry, based on the evidence available, pursuant to the judgment passed by this judgment, dated 15.12.2005, in S.T.A. (M.D).No.1 of 2005. It is also noted that an enquiry had been initiated against the Assistant Settlement Officer concerned, with regard to the grant of pattas, in respect of a vast extent of lands, including the lands in question, with regard to the alleged irregularities committed by him, in respect of pattas issued. It is the case of the first respondent that the Assistant Settlement Officer concerned had not followed the procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and the Rules framed thereunder, while granting pattas in favour of the appellants, in respect of the lands in question. 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appellants have not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, dated 08.12.2006, made in Revenue Appeal No.1 of 2004. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.