This batch of writ appeals was dismissed. The Apex Court held that the learned Single Judge correctly allowed writ petitions directing patta grants, as the lowering officer's order assigning patta to the predecessor-title was final and not assailed.
The writ appeals are disposed of; there will be no order as to costs; consequent CM-Ps are closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.No.2089 of 2023 etc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.10.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.Nos.2089, 2090, 2092, 2094, 2095, 2096, 2098, 2100, 2101, 2102, 2103, 2104, 2105, 2106, 2107, 2108, 2110, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2118 & 2119 of 2023
W.A.No.2089 of 2023:
Vs
D.R.PRABIN RUFUS
.. Respondent
and batch cases
For the Appellants : Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.U.Bharanidharan Addl. Government Pleader
_____________ Page 1 of 9_
W.A.No.2089 of 2023 etc.
For the Respondent : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan in all writ appeals, Senior Counsel except W.A.No.2117 of for Mr.J.A.S.Sathish Kumar 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.U.Bharanidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the appellants; and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in all the writ appeals, except W.A.No.2117 of 2023.
_____________ Page 2 of 9_
W.A.No.2089 of 2023 etc.
petitioners had filed applications for grant of pattas. The same was rejected. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions directing the authorities to grant patta in favour of the original petitioners, as detailed in the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the State has filed the present appeals.
4.1. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants, submits that the lands in Survey Nos.11/1A, 11/2, 11/3 and 11/4 were classified as “Government Dry lands” and “Government Manavari”. It had the remark “Anadeenam”. The said notification issued on 12.3.1965 became final. Subsequently, the said lands, under the order dated 31.1.1969, were declared as “Anadeenam”. The said order became final, as the said order was never questioned before any court.
4.2. It is further submitted that, in the year 2010, one Tmt.Maujini Chella, wife of David Wilson, applied for patta and the petition was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (North) under the order dated 27.12.2010. Against the same, she filed writ
Page 3 of 9
W.A.No.2089 of 2023 etc.
petition before this court bearing W.P.No.10485 of 2011. This court, under order dated 25.4.2011, set aside the order dismissing the application filed by Tmt.Maujini Chella and directed to afford an opportunity of hearing and dispose of the said petition on merits. On 23.9.2011, the Assistant Settlement Officer (North) took up the matter and passed order issuing patta under Sections 9(1)(a) and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 [for brevity, “ the Act of 1963 ”]
4.3. It is also submitted that Tmt.Maujini Chella filed a writ
petition, bearing W.P.No.32687 of 2012, for mutating the name in the revenue records and issuance of patta. This court, under order dated 14.12.2012, directed to mutate the name in the revenue records and issue patta.
4.4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the
State has already filed C.M.P. No.SR 131 of 2023 before the Sub Court, Chengalpattu, against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 23.9.2011 and the same is pending.
Page 4 of 9
W.A.No.2089 of 2023 etc.
5.1. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents in all the appeals except W.A.No. 2117 of 2023, submits that the order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer directing to issue patta to the predecessor-in-title of the original petitioners has become final. The order of this court in W.P.No.32687 of 2012, dated 14.12.2012 only directed to implement the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 23.9.2011 and pursuant thereto the name of the predecessor-intitle was mutated in the revenue records. The parts of the land were carved out pursuant to the layout and the plots were sold to the original petitioners. Naturally, the original petitioners would be entitled to patta, as they have derived valid title from the predecessor-in-title.
5.2. It is further submitted that C.MP.No.SR131 of 2023 filed
by the State before the Sub Court, Chengalpattu, against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 23.9.2011 after 12 years would not be maintainable.
Page 5 of 9
W.A.No.2089 of 2023 etc.
Page 6 of 9
W.A.No.2089 of 2023 etc.
dated 14.12.2012 in W.P.No.32687 of 2012, only directed to implement the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 23.9.2011 passed under Sections 9(1)(a) and 12 of the Act of 1963, which directs issuance of patta in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the original petitioners. The order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer has not been assailed by the State authorities and the same had become final.
Page 7 of 9
W.A.No.2089 of 2023 etc.
as the original writ petitioners are kept open.
The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. There will be no
order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.17901, 17902, 19711,
17913, 17915, 17918, 17928, 17927, 17929, 17931, 17939, 17941, 17950, 17946, 17953, 17954, 17957, 17955, 17983, 17956, 17962, 17963, 17965, 17966, 17981, 17980, 17971, 17974, 17975, 17973, 17979, 17978, 17989, 17987, 17995, 17996, 17998, 18001, 18000, 18009, 18011, 18012, 18013, 18017, 18016, 18024, 18021, 18035 and 18034 of 2023 are closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 09.10.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi
Page 8 of 9
W.A.No.2089 of 2023 etc.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.2089 of 2023 etc. batch
09.10.2023
_____________ Page 9 of 9_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge committed error in directing the authorities to grant patta to the original petitioners based on a final order in their favour.
Whether a staying petition filed by the State in a Sub Court would affect the disposal of the current writ appeals.
The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Tambaram
The Assistant Settlement Officer (North)
D.R. Prabin Rufus
SANJAY GANGAPURWALA
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
