Madras High Court
Udaiyar Servai(Died) vs /7 on 8 January, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
S.T.A(MD)No.1 of 2018
1.Udaiyar Servai(died)
2.U.Thiyagarajan
3.Selvarani
4.U.Rajasekar
5.U.Amsavalli
6.U.Eswari
7.U.Jothi
8.U.Senthil Kumar
(Appellants 2 to 8 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased
sole appellant as per order of this Court made in C.M.P(MD)NOs.9915 to 9917 of
2023 in S.T.A(MD)No.1 of 2018, dated 09.08.2023)
... Appellant/Appellant
.Vs.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by the District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai. ... Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Special Tribunal Appeal filed under Section 46 of Tamil Nadu Inam
Estate Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 26/1993 against the fair and
decretal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 1999, dated 7.6.2016,on the file of Inam
Abolition Tribunal, Sivagangai(Sub-Court, Sivagangai).
For Appellants : Mr.J.John
For Respondent : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam
Govt. Advocate
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
This Special Tribunal Appeal is filed against the order passed by the
Tribunal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The brief facts of the case is that:
The appellant herein claiming title through sale deed, dated 13.08.1962
alleged to have been purchased from one Karuppiah Chettiar, who claims to be
the owner of the property through sale deed, dated 30.09.1960 executed by Raja
of Sivagangai. Three documents dated 30.09.1960, 13.08.1962 and 25.07.1963
does not mention or describe about the location and survey number of the
property which is alleged to have been conveyed. Therefore, when the Settlement
Tashildar was requested to issue patta based on these documents, he had rightly
rejected the claim stating that the properties for which patta was sought, does
not correlate with the title documents relied upon by the appellant. Hence the
same was rejected. The four boundaries claimed to be the boundaries of the
properties, for which, patta was sought, was not specific and certain and that is
the reason why the Assistant Settlement Officer has rejected the claim for
issuance of patta.
3.When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has
confirmed the order of the Special Tribunal . Hence the present appeal is filed. A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
large extent of land declared as Inam land sought to be the subject-matter of the
Village which was taken over by the Government on 01.05.1967 under the Tamil
Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1963 vide
G.O.No.1119, dated 30.3.1965. Under the Estate Abolition Act, the Assistant
Settlement Officer, Madurai has passed an order on 27.2.1971 which covers
S.No.222, measuring an extent of 4.56 acres which is subject-matter of the
representation given by the appellant herein for issuance of patta. The Assistant
Settlement Officer, Madurai after considering the representation of the Petitioner,
allowed the Petition. However, on appeal, the Tribunal remanded the matter back
for re-consideration. While so, in the second round of litigation, the Assistant
Settlement Officer ,Madurai vide order, dated 29.10.1983 dismissed the Petition
seeking patta on the ground that the boundaries described under the sale deed
relied upon by the appellant does not identify the exact location of the property.
For the second time, the matter was again remanded back by the Tribunal on
appeal. On third round of litigation, the Assistant Settlement Officer has again
rejected the issuance of patta by order dated 18.09.1995.The Tribunal confirmed
the said order vide order dated 7.6.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the description of
the property in the sale deed refers to the permanent boundaries and therefore
the reasoning given by the Tribunal as well as the Assistant Settlement Officer is
erroneous. He would further argue that the lie of the property is easily
identifiable and therefore , there is no bar or impediment in granting patta based
on the title deeds of the appellant herein.
5.The learned Government Advocate, per contra, submitted that the entire
land has been declared as Grama Natham as early as in the year 1971. Though
these documents/sale deeds is of the year 1960, 1961 and 1963, tracing earlier
documents prior to the Abolition Act, do not unambiguously describe the
location of the property with proper measurement, survey number and boudaries.
6.On considering the rival submission made on either side, though much
emphasis is placed on the pre-legislation document, the fact remains that the title
deeds relied upon by the appellant does not ascertain any clear description and
location of the property. As a concommittant, based on the said documents, patta
cannot be granted to the property which has already been declared as Grama
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Natham. Hence this Court finds no reason to reverse the findings of the Tribunal.
Hence the Special Tribunal Appeal stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
[G.J.,J.] [C.K.,J.]
08.01.2024
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsn
To
The Sub-Judge,
Inam Abolition Tribunal
(Sub-Court),
Sivagangai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
08.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
