Madras High Court
Savithribai Joshi(Died) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 October, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
Rev.Aplc(md)No.66 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.66 of 2024
in
A.S.No.905 of 2004
1.Savithribai Joshi(Died)
2.N.Upendran(Died)
3.B.N.Joshi
4.Sripata
5.Hemalatha
6.R.Ramanathan(Died)
7.R.Udhayakumar ... Petitioners 1-7/Appellants
1 -5 & 7 to 9
8.U.Kumuthini
9.U.Kamesh
10.U.Charusheela
11.Dhinesh ...Petitioners 8-11/ L.Rs of
2nd Appellant
12.Saraswathi
13.Srikirupa
14.Karthikeyan
15.Anuradha
16.Sangeetha ... Petitioners 12 -16/L.Rs of
6th Appellant
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The District Health Officer,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents 1&2/
Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Rev.Aplc(md)No.66 of 2024
3.S.Sailakumari ...3rd Respondent/9th Appellant
Prayer : Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Section 114 of
C.P.C., to review the order of this Court dated 12.09.2018 passed in A.S.No.905
of 2004.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun
for Mrs.J.Anandhavalli
For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The review application has been filed by the petitioners seeking
re-visitation of the judgment dated 12.09.2018 in A.S.No.905 of 2004, by
which judgment, this Court had allowed the Appeal Suit and had set aside the
judgment and decree of the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, dated
25.07.1990 in O.S.No.26 of 1989 and had dismissed the said suit.
2.Though one of the grounds raised in the review is that the second
plaintiff, who is the second respondent in the cause title to the appeal suit
N.Upendran, had died and that the Court had proceeded without impleading the
legal representatives, since the legal representatives have now filed the review
and an order is now passed on hearing the learned counsels, the findings in the
judgment in the Appeal Suit is retained. It is also to be noted that the counsel
had actually appeared on behalf of the respondents 3 to 5 and 7 to 9, while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
hearing the Appeal Suit and no mention was made about the death of the second
respondent.
3.Be that as it may, one of the primary grievances is that the lands which
were the subject matter of the suit measuring 25 acres and 20 cents, had been
originally classified as Anadheenam lands. This would indicate that though
patta had been granted initially, since the lands had not been effectively put to
use, a decision had been taken to reclassify the lands as Anadheenam lands. It is
stated by the learned counsel for the applicants that even though the lands had
been reclassified as Anadheenam lands as original pattadhars, the review
petitioners are in an advantageous position to seek reclassification of the said
lands back in their names.
4.The other grievance is that after classifying the lands as Anadheenam
lands, by Ex.B.2, some of the lands had been further reclassified as assessed
dry waste. Survey No.518 was subdivided into 7 portions. Each portion
contained 0.91 acres. These lands were reclassified as assessed dry waste. Even
in the Adangal, Ex.B.3, the aforementioned lands were reclassified as assessed
dry waste. Ex.B.4, is a document reflecting handing over of a part of S.No.518
and in that document also the lands had been reclassified as assessed dry waste
land measuring 1 acre had been handed over to the Public Health Department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
District Health Officer, Ramanathapuram for the purpose of constructing
Malariya Field Station, staff quarters and godown.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the review applicant stated that this
reclassification as assessed dry waste was done immediately after the suit was
filed. It is contended that on the basis of such reclassification, the appellant in
the Appeal Suit herein had proceeded to issue patta to various third parties.
Questioning such issuance of patta, the review petitioners have instituted writ
petitions which are pending. It is contended that by this reclassification as
assessed dry waste, has affected the right of the review petitioners to seek the
lands which had been only classified as Anadheenam, lands. It is further
contended that the observations of this Court that the petitioners have lost their
title owing to such reclassification of the lands as assessed dry waste, should be
re-examined by this Court to that extent.
6.Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Special Government Pleader stated that the
Government had taken possession of the lands and had also issued a
notification and since no objections were raised, the Government proceeded to
take further steps to grant patta to various individuals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.As stated above, the grant of such patta is the subject matter of the
scope of writ petitions. But the observation by the Court that the review
applicants have lost title over the lands might affect the interest of the review
petitioners when agitating the writ petitions herein. Therefore, that particular
observation line is now reviewed by this order. That observation has crept at
Para No.40, wherein it has been stated “It is settled principle that once the land
had been acquired for public purpose, compensation alone can be sought”.
This observation, suffers from two errors viz., that land had been
acquired and that therefore the review applicants are entitled only for
compensation.
8.The fact is that the review applicants were originally recognized as
pattadhars and owing to various circumstances the lands had been reclassified
as Anadheenam which still retained a right to them to seek possession of the
lands and to seek mutation of the records to their names. The lands had been
however subsequently reclassified as assessed dry waste land and only
thereafter they had been acquired by the Government.
9.I hold that in the judgment in the Appeal Suit, this particular line in
Para No.40 has to be deleted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.In Para No.43, the following observation of the Court is deleted “I
hold that the plaintiffs have not established their title over the entire suit
property. ' On the other hand, the following observation is incorporated:
“I hold that the plaintiffs have not established their possession over the
lands which had been declared as assessed dry waste and that they must be
given an opportunity to establish such possession by raising a claim with the
authorities”.
11.In para No.44, it had been observed as follows:
“However, the plaintiffs are given liberty to apply to the authorities to
claim title to specific areas which are required for livelihood”, requires to be
revisited and the words “ to specific areas which are required for livelihood”
are deleted. The following word “since” is also deleted.
12.In Para No.45, the following sentence is deleted::
“Points framed for determination are answered that the plaintiffs have
not established title or possession over the lands reclassified as assessed dry
waste and the defendant had taken possession of those lands after subdividing
the property”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The following is substituted:
“Points framed for determination are answered that the plaintiffs have
not established title or possession over the lands reclassified as assessed dry
waste and the defendant had taken possession of those lands after subdividing
the property”.
13.In para No.46, a direction had been issued as follows:
“the first respondent is directed to survey the entire lands and determine
the actual lands over which the plaintiffs are in possession and if the plaintiffs
make any representation seeking allotment of said land, consider it in
accordance with the rules”.
The word “over which the plaintiffs are in possession” are deleted and is
substituted with “over which there has been reclassification as assessed dry
waste”.
14.The review application is accordingly partly allowed. The judgment
dated 12.09.2018 is to be accordingly amended and fresh judgment copy may
be issued. No costs.
22.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Ns
To
1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizen Tribunal cum Sub Collector,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
in
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
