Madras High Court
Sudalai Muthu vs Medai Dhalavai K.Thirumalaiyappa on 15 September, 2023
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)Nos.387, 5283 of 2007, 906 of 2008, 7431, 13849, 16285 of 2013, 4086 of
2015, 21422 of 2016, 5600 of 2017, 20650 of 2018, 14132, 19028, 23086, 24767, 24772 of
2019, (*)22572 of 2021, 4358, 5931, 5950, 6651, 6656, 6713 of 2022
and
WMP(MD)Nos.15312, 15313 of 2016, 4488, 4489, of 2017, 18412, 18413 of 2018,
10601, 15332, 19820, 19821, 21377, 21373, 21374 of 2019, 19091, 19092 of 2021,
and
MP(MD)Nos.2 of 2007, 1, 2, 2, 3 of 2015, 21181, 21376, of 2019, 3352, 3387, 3397,
3392, 3399 of 2023,
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
Sudalai Muthu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Medai Dhalavai K.Thirumalaiyappa
Mudaliar (died)
2.T.R.Alagappa Mudaliar
Rep.by his power agent Shanthilal
(R2 was amended vide order dated 12.11.2018 in
MP(MD)No.1 of 2009)
3.Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms),
Tiruvandram Road,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
4.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by Revenue Secretary,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
5.Kalidoss ... Respondents
(R5 is substituted for the deceased
1st respondent vide order dated 12.11.2018)
Prayer in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : - : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd and 4th respondents in respect of
proceedings in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee No.48A published in
Annexure to Part VI Section 1 dated 13.12.2006 in respect of the holding of the
second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and
unenforceable consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to cause fresh
publication of the proceedings u/s. 10(1) of the Act after giving opportunity to
interested persons and thus render justice.
WP(MD). 5283/ 2007
M.D.K.Shanmuganathan,
... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Assistant Commisisoner, Land Reforms, Thiruvandrum Road, Thirunelveli.
2. The Commissioner, Land Reforms Chepauk, Chennai.
3. D.R. Alagappa Mudhaliar,
4. M.D.R.Kumarasamy
(R4 Impleaded as Per Order Dt. 13.09.12 in Mp(MD)1/12)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
5. M.D.R. Renganathan
(R5 is Impleaded Vide Court Order Dt. 21/04/2014 in MP(MD) 1/13)
6. D.R.Alagappa Mudaliar Rep. by His Power Agent Shanthilal, S/o.Pukhraj Jain,
(R6 is Impleaded Vide Court Order Dt. 13/12/17 in MP(MD)1/09)
7.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District.
(R7 is Suo Motu Impleaded Vide Court Order Dt. 22/11/18 in WP(MD)No.5283/07)
... Respondents in WP(MD). 5283/ 2007
Prayer in WP(MD). 5283/ 2007 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
proceedings of publication of Tamilnadu Government Gazette in annexure to part
VI Section 1 dated 13/12/2006 in respect of holdings of 3rd respondent and quash
the same and direct the 1st respondent to finalize the proceedings under Tamilnadu
Land Reforms Act 58/61 and Act 17/70 in respect of the lands of seevalaperi
chatram and grant individural patta to all the shareholders after deciding their
respective holdings.
WP(MD). 906/ 2008
1.M.D.K.Shanmuganathan,
2. M.D.K.Subramaniam
3. MDT.Kumarasamy
4. MDT. Renganathan ... Petitioners
- Vs. -
1. The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Thiruvandrum Road, Thirunelveli.
2. The State of Tamilnadu, Reptd., by Revenue Secretary, Fort. St. George,
Chennai-9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District.
(R3 is Suo Motu Impleaded Vide Court Order Dt. 22/11/18 in WP(MD)No.
906/08) ... Respondents in WP(MD). 906/ 2008
Prayer in WP(MD). 906/ 2008 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court To issue a Writ of Mandmaus, directing the respondents to finalize the
appropriate proceedings in respect of the lands of Seevalaperi Chatram, and its
hugdars including their personal and family holdings under Land reforms Act.
32/1971 as on 01/03/1970 and grant individual patta to all the Shareholders after
deciding their respective holdings.
WP(MD). 7431/ 2013
M.D.R. Kumarasamy, ...Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Commissioner, Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai.
2. The Joint Commissioner, Land Reforms, Thiruvananthapuram Road, Tirunelveli.
... Respondents in WP(MD). 7431/ 2013
Prayer in WP(MD). 7431/ 2013 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court to issue WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for records
relaring to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide.No.A2.MRI/80R/TNV/58-61
dated 19/02/2013 and quash the portions alone in Neduvayal Village in namuna
No.9, item No.1 in S.No.302/1, item No.2 in S.No.302/3, item No.3 in S.No.305/1,
item No. 4 in S.No.305/3, item No.26 in S.No.258, item No.28 in S.No.342/3
pertaining to krishnapuram village vide item No.290 in S.No.502, item No.291 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
S.No.507, item No.292 in S.No.508, Item No.293 in S.No.509, Item No.299 in S.No.506
in namuna No.6 Neduvayal village, item No.1018 in S.No.333 AND
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT the 2nd respodent to re-notify the same by publishing
the fresh statement by allotting 15 standard acres of land in accordance with law.
WP(MD). 13849/ 2013
M.Murali ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Tirunelveli
3. The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli
4. Alagappa Mudaliar,
5. Ramasamy Mudaliar,
6. Thirumalaiappan,
7. Shanmuganadhan,
8. Subramanian
9. Kalyani,
10. Kumarasamy,
11. Vasantha,
12. Thirumalaiappan,
13. Vellammal
14. Vallinayagam,
15. Kumarasamy,
16. Kalyani,
17. Ramalingam
18. Subramanian,
19. Palaniappan,
20. Balasubramanian,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
21. Sivagami Kapoor,
22. Angaiyar Kanni Anni,
23. Sivagami Sundari,
24. Ulagammal Anni,
25. Chelliah Rajan,
26. Subbiah,
27. Shanmughakumarasamy,
28. Vellammal Anni,
29. Sekar,
30. Chellammal Anni,
31. Renganayaki Anni,
32. Chellammal Anni,
33. Kalyani Anni,
34. Gomathi Anni,
35. Ulagammal Anni,
36. Rukmani Anni,
37. Umamaheswari,
38. Shanmughavadivu Anni,
39. Renganadhan, ...
Respondents in WP(MD). 13849/ 2013
Prayer in WP(MD). 13849/ 2013 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court To issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other direction directing the
respondents to cancel the patta issued in favour of the respondents 4 to 39
pertaining to survey number 389/1 Ariyakulam Village, Palayamkottai Taluk,
irunelveli District and further directing the respondents to issue patta in favour of
the petitioner pertaining to survey number 389/1, Ariyakulam Village,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
Palayamkottai TK, Tirunelveli District by considering petitioner's representation
dated 22.03.2013.
WP(MD). 16285/ 2013
M.Parvathy ...Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Authorized Officer & Joint Commissioner, Land Reforms, Tirunelveli.
2. The Thasildar, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli.
... Respondents in WP(MD). 16285/ 2013
Prayer in WP(MD). 16285/ 2013 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court Pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned order of the Ist respondent in A2.MRI/23R/TNV dated
30.01.2013 and quash the same only in so for as directing the 2nd respondent to
restore the revenue entries in the name of the hugdars and consequently direct the
2nd respondent to restore the petitioners name in the joint patta No. 782 in respect of
the land to an extent of 1.24 acres situated in S.No. 318, ariyakulam village,
palayamkottai taluk, tirunelveli district.
WP(MD). 4086/ 2015
1. Murugan
2.S. Natarajan
3. Tmt.Petchiammal
4. Tmt.Lakshmi
5. Tmt.Alwar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
6. C.Melson Raj
7. Dr.P.Senthil Arasu
8. D.Simson Packia Raja
9. Mrs.Jesi Chellathai
10. P.Jeyapal
11. G.Thalavaipandian
12. V.Prakash Babu
13. A.Palavasam
14. R.Anthony Raj
15. P.Sunder rajan
16. S.Santha Kumar
17. M.Ramasamy
18. B.Uma
19. J.Shathikul Ameen
20. M.Krishna Bama
21. S.Jeya
22. M.S.Mohamed Rafeek
23. M.Ansar Ali
24. S.Krishna Samy
25. A.Subramanian
26. P.Murugan
27. K.Seeniammal
28. N.Ambikapathi
29. G.Nesamani
30. Mariappan
31. K.Kalyani
32. P.Seethalakshmi
33. M.Eswari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
34. Y.Sinnathi
35. R.Annachipillaiammal
36. S.Patichiammal
37. P.Valliammal
38. S.Shunmugathai
39. A.Subbulakshmi
40. A.Annainthaperumal
41. S.Rajendran
42. M.Jeya Vel
43. S.Veerappan
44. R.Senthatti
45. S.Uma Sankarai
46. A.Senthil Vel
47. M.Valliammal
48. S.Selvi
49. P.Dharmar
50. P.Velayutham
51. M.Margaret Rani
52. C.Rajakani
53. P.Narayanan
54. N.Lakshmi
55. Kathiresan
56. Tmt.K.Lakshmi ... Petitioners
- Vs. -
1. The Authorized Officer And Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms) Tirunelveli
2. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005
3. The Tahsildar Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District
4. The Secretary Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
5. Dalavoy T.Ramasamy
6. Murugan,
7. Murulaidhan
8. Poovanalingam
9. The President, Ariyakulam Panchayat, Ariyakulam Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
10. The Sub Registrar Burkit Manager, Tirunelveli District.
11. The Inspector General Of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 028.
12. The District Collector Tirunelveli. (R5 to 12 are Impleaded Vide Court Order
District 23/11/18 in WMP(MD)No.6660/16)
13.M.D.K.Shanmuganathan,
(R13 is Impleaded Vide Court Order Dated 26.11.2018 in WP(MD)No.6660/16)
14.Kalyanianni
(R14 is Impleaded Vide Court Order Dated.15/09/23 in WMP(MD)No.18811 of
2023 in WP(MD)4086 of 2015)
... Respondents in WP(MD). 4086/ 2015
Prayer in WP(MD). 4086/ 2015 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court To call for the records relating to the proceedings bearing No. A2.MRI/
23R/TNV dt. 30.01.2013 of the 1st respondent, and quash the order passed therein
and consequently forebear the respondents from interfering with the assignments
already made with regard to the lands of the respective petitioners by the issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction.
WP(MD). 21422/ 2016
1. S.Sudalaimuthu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
2. S.Gopi
3. T.Palvannan ... Petitioners
- Vs. -
1. The Land Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai -5.
2. The Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli.
... Respondents in WP(MD). 21422/ 2016
Prayer in WP(MD). 21422/ 2016 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st
Respondent in RP1/2016 (L.Ref) dated 2.9.2016 confirming the order passed by the
second respondent in ref.A2/MRI/23R/TNV dated 30.1.2013 and urgent memo in
A2/MR1/23R/TNV/58-61 dated 22.2.2013 and quash the same as illegal arbitrary
and unenforceable consequently direct the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry to
determince the surplus holding of land owners from the stage of Sec.9 (2)
(b) of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (fixation of ceiling on land) Act. 58/61 as
amended by Act 17/70
WP(MD). 5600/ 2017
A.Meena ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Authorized Officer And Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli.
2. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Tahsildar Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Secretary Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
... Respondents in WP(MD). 5600/ 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
Prayer in WP(MD). 5600/ 2017 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to
the proceedings bearing No. A2.MRI/23R/TNV dated 30.01.2013 of the first
Respondent, and quash the order passed therein and consequently forebear the
respondents from interfering with the assignments already made with regard to the
lands of the respective petitioner.
WP(MD). 20650/ 2018
S.Sudalaimuthu
2. S.Gopi
3. T.Palvannan
4. P.Ramalakshmi
... Petitioners
- Vs. -
1. The Land Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai - 5
2. The Joint Commissioner, (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli
4. The District Registrar, Administration, Palyamkottai.
5. The Sub Registrar Burkit Managaram, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents in WP(MD). 20650/ 2018
Prayer in WP(MD). 20650/ 2018 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the order
passed by the 2nd respondent in ref.A2/MR1/23R/TNV dated 10.10.2012, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
consequential order and communication of 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent in
Na.Ka.No.A8/1795/2017 dated .12.2017 signed on 2.1.2018, the consequential
communication of the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent in Na.Ka.No.
7478/A3/2016 dated .01.2018 and signed on 18.1.2018 and the consequential
endorsements made by the 5th respondent in the encumbrance certificates dated
2.4.2018 and in other official records and quash the same as illegal , arbitary and
unenforceable, consequently direct the 5th respondent to restore his office records
and encumbrance certificates to its original position.
WP(MD). 14132/ 2019
P.Sankaran, ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Authorized Officer & Joint Commissioner, (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli
2. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai-5
3. The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District
4. The Secretary Revenue Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai-9
... Respondents in WP(MD). 14132/ 2019
Prayer in WP(MD). 14132/ 2019 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
the Impugned proceedings No. A2/MRI/23R/TNV dt.30.01.2013 of the first
respondent and quash the order passed therein and consequently forebear the
respondents from interfering with the assignment already made with regard to
S.No.345/1 of Ariyakulam Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District with an
extent of 1.60 Ares belonging to the Petitioner
WP(MD). 19028/ 2019
1.Pooliah
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
2. R.Swaminathan ... Petitioners
- Vs. -
1. The District Revenue Officer Kokrakulam, Tirunelveli Dist
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kokrakulam, Tirunelveli Dist
3. The Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Kokrakulam, Tirunelveli Dist
4. The District Registrar, Kokrakulam, Tirunelveli Dist
5. The Sub Registrar, Burkitmanagar, Tirunelveli Dist
... Respondents in WP(MD). 19028/ 2019
Prayer in WP(MD). 19028/ 2019 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court to issue Writ of Mandamus Directing the 1st respondent to consider the
appeal dated 09.03.2018 filed by the petitioner and to enter the name of the
petitioners as joint pattadhars in respect of property in Survey No. 326 and 327/1A
Ariyakulam Village, Palayamkottai Taluk and further to make consequential entries
in the records of the 5th respondent in respect of the said properties.
WP(MD). 23086/ 2019
P. Narayanan ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli.
3. The Thasildar Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli
4. The District Registrar Tirunelveli.
5. The Sub Registrar Burkitmanagaram, Tirunelveli
... Respondent(s) in WP(MD). 23086/ 2019
Prayer in WP(MD). 23086/ 2019 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
Court to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the impugned orders of the respondents 1 and 2 in A2/MRI/23R/TNV dt.
10/10/2012 and Na.Ka.No.A8/1795/2017 dt. /12/2017 signed on 02/01/2018
respectively and the consequential impugned order of 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.
7478 / A3 / 2016 dt. 01/18 signed on 18/01/2018 and quash the same and
consequently direct the 4th respondent to include the petitioner name in the Joint
patta No.782 and also direct the 5th respondent to remove the endorsement
regarding invalidity of sale made in the encumbrance register in pursuant to the
impugned orders of the respondent 2 and 4 in respect of S.No.353/3A.
WP(MD). 24767/ 2019
S.Veerappan ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli
2. The Revenue Divsional Officer, Tirunelveli
3. The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli
4. The District Registrar (Admn ). Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli Dist
5. The Sub Registrar, Burkitmangaram, Tirunelveli
... Respondents in WP(MD). 24767/ 2019
Prayer in WP(MD). 24767/ 2019 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court to issue Writ of Certiorified Mandamus Calling for the records relating to the
impugned orders of the respondent 1 and 2 in A2/MRI/23R/TNV dated 10.10.2012
and Na.Ka.No.A8/1795/2017 dated .12.17 signed on 2.1.2018 respectively and the
consequential impugned order of the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.NO.7478/A3/2016
dated 01.18, signed on 18.1.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the 4th
respondent to include Petitioner's name in the joint patta No.782 and also direct the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
5th respondent to remove the endforsement regarding invalidity of sale made in the
encumbrance register in pursuant to the impugned orders of the respondents 2 and
4 in respect of S.No.392.
WP(MD). 24772/ 2019
S.Pool Pandian ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli
2. The Revenue Divsional Officer, Tirunelveli
3. The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli
4. The District Registrar (Admn )., Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli Dist
5. The Sub Registrar, Burkitmangaram, Tirunelveli
... Respondents in WP(MD). 24772/ 2019
Prayer in WP(MD). 24772/ 2019 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records relating to
the impugned orders of the respondent 1 and 2 in A2/MRI/23R/TNV dated
10.10.2012 and Na.Ka.No.A8/1795/2017 dated .12.17 signed on 2.1.2018 respectively
and the consequential impugned order of the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.NO.
7478/A3/2016 dated 01.18, signed on 18.1.2018 and quash the same and
consequently direct the 4th respondent to include my name in the joint patta No.782
and also direct the 5th respondent to remove the enforsement regarding invalidity of
sale made in the encumbrance register in pursuant to the impugned orders of the
respondents 2 and 4 in respect of S.No.423.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
WP(MD). 22572/ 2021
Saravanakumar ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Authorised Officer and Joint Commissioner, (Land Reforms) Tirunelveli.
2. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.
3. The Tahsildar Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Secretary Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009.
5. Dalavai R.Alagappan
6. Dalavai T.Ramasamy ... Respondents in WP(MD). 22572/ 2021
Prayer in WP(MD). 22572/ 2021 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned proceedings in No.A2/MRI/23R/TNV dated 30.01.2013 passed by
the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents not to interfere with the assignment already made with regard to S.No.
318 part in Ariyakulam Village, Palayamkottai Tk, Tirunelveli District with an
extent of 1 acre 41 cents belonging to the petitioner .
WP(MD). 4358/ 2022
Thavasupandian.M ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Authorised Officer and Joint Commissioner, (Land Reforms) Tirunelveli.
2. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Tahsildar Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Secretary Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009.
... Respondents in WP(MD). 4358/ 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
Prayer in WP(MD). 4358/ 2022 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned proceedings in No.A2/MRI /23R/TNV dated 30.01.2013 passed by
the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents not to interfere with the assignment already made with regard to
Survey No. 345/1A in the centre portion to the extent of 25 cents, Ariyakulam
Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, belonging to the petitioner.
WP(MD). 5931/ 2022
K.Kasipandian ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Authorised Officer and Joint Commissioner, (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli.
2. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Tahsildar Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli District.
4. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
... Respondents in WP(MD). 5931/ 2022
Prayer in WP(MD). 5931/ 2022 :
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned proceedings in No.A2/MRI/23R/TNV dated 30.01.2013 passed by
the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents not to interfere with the assignment already made with regard to
survey No.345/1 A in the eastern portion to the extent of 25 cents, Ariyakulam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, belonging to the petitioner.
WP(MD). 5950/ 2022
S.Michael Selvaraj ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Authorised Officer and Joint Commissioner, ( Land Reforms ) , Tirunelveli .
2. The Commissioner of Land Reforms,, Chepauk, Chennai - 600005.
3. The Tahsildar Palayamkottai , Tirunelveli District.
4. The Secretary Revenue Department , Fort St.George , Chennai - 600009.
... Respondents in WP(MD). 5950/ 2022
Prayer in WP(MD). 5950/ 2022 :
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India , praying this Court
to issue of Writ Certiorarified Mandamus or any writ or order or direction in the
nature of Writ directig to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
proceedings in No.A2/MRI/23R/TNV dated 30.01.2013 passed by the 1st
respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents
not to interfere with the assignment already made with regard to Survey No.345/1A
in the western portion to the extent of 30 cents , Ariyakulam Village , Palayamkottai
Taluk, Tirunelveli District , belonging to the petitioner.
WP(MD). 6651/ 2022
K.Chokkalingam ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Authorised Officer and Joint Commissioner, (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli
2. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
3. The Tahsildar Palaymkottai, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Secretary Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
... Respondents in WP(MD). 6651/ 2022
Prayer in WP(MD). 6651/ 2022 :
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned proceedings in No.A2/MRI/23R/TNV dated 30.01.2013 passed by
the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents not to interfere with the assignment already made with regard in
survey No.352/3b part under new sub division in the southern portion to the extent
of 30 cents, out of 1.81 acers Ariyakulam village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli
District, belonging to the petitioner.
WP(MD). 6656/ 2022
K.Periyaperumal ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Authorised Officer and Joint Commissioner, (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli.
2. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai-600005.
3. The Tahsildar Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Secretary Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
... Respondents in WP(MD). 6656/ 2022
Prayer in WP(MD). 6656/ 2022 :
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
to the impugned proceedings in No.A2/MRI/23R/TNV dated 30.01.2013 passed by
the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents not interfere with the assignment already made with regard in Survey
No.352/3b part under new sub division in the southern portion to the extent of 30
cents, out of 1.81 acres Ariyakulam Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli
District, belonging to the petitioner .
WP(MD). 6713/ 2022
L.Malaipetchi ... Petitioner
- Vs. -
1. The Authorised Officer and Joint Commissioner, (Land Reforms),
Tirunelveli.
2. The Commissioner of Land Reforms,, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Tahsildar Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
5. Dalavai R.Alagappan,
6. Dalavai T.Ramasamy ... Respondents in WP(MD). 6713/ 2022
Prayer in WP(MD). 6713/ 2022 :
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned proceedings in No.A2/MRI/23R/TNV dated 30.01.2013 passed by the
1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents not to interfere with the assignment already made with regard to S.No.
318 part in Ariyakulam Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District with an
extent of 0.65 acre belonging to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
APPEARANCE
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
For Petitioner : Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sivakumar for R1
Mr.M.Thilagar for R2
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar
Additional Government Pleader for R3 & R4
WP MD No.5283/2007
Mr.R.Sankarnarayanan Senior Advocate for M/s.Vr.Shanmuganathan for petitioner
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar AGP for R1 and R2. (R3-N.A)
Mr.D.Saravanan for R4
Mr.D.Nallathambi for R5
Mr.A.Sivaji for R6.
WP MD No.906/2008
Mr.R.Sankarnarayanan Senior Advocate for M/s.Vr.Shanmuganathan for petitioner,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, AGP for Respondents.
WP MD No.7431/2013
Mr.D.Saravanan for petitioner,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, AGP for Respondents.
WP MD No.13849/2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh for Petitioner,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, AGP for R 1 to R3 (R4- N.A)
Mr.R.Sankarnarayanan Senior Advocate for M/s.Vr.Shanmuganathan for R5 and R7
(R6, R 8 to R 39 Tapal returned)
WP MD No.16285/2013,
WP MD No.24767/2019,
WP MD No.23086/2019 and
WP MD No.24772/2019
Mr.H.Arumugam for petitioner,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, AGP for Respondents.
WP MD No.4086/2015
Mr.V.Ragavachari Sr.Advocate, for M/s.R.Murali,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, AGP for R1 to R4, R 11, R 12,
Mr.R.Sankarnarayanan Senior Advocate for M/s.Vr.Shanmuganathan for R 5 to R
10, R13, R14
WP MD No.21422/2016 and WP MD No.20650/2018
Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan for petitioner,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, AGP for Respondents.
WP MD No.5600/2017
Mr.P.Banu Prasath for petitioner,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, AGP for Respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
WP MD No.14132/2019
Mr.K.N.Govardhnan for petitioner,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, AGP for Respondents.
WP MD No.19028/2019
Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for petitioner,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, AGP for Respondents.
WP MD No.22572/2021
WP MD No.4358/2022,
WP MD No.5931/2022,
WP MD No.6651/2022
WP MD No.6656/2022,
Mr.AR.Jeyaruthran for petitioner,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, AGP for Respondents.
5950/2022,
Mr.AR.Jeyaruthran for petitioner,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, AGP for R1 to R4.
WP MD No.6713/2022
Mr.AR.Jeyaruthran for petitioner,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, AGP for R 1 to R4 (R5.N.A, R6-Tapal returned)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24/41
in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
COMMON ORDER
All these writ petitions arise out of proceedings initiated under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961). Medai Dhalavai Family had owned 627.25 standard acres of land in Ariyakulam and Maruthur Villages in Tirunelveli District. The lands stood in the name of Seevalaperi Chatram. The Authorized Officer (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli applying the statutory mandate set out in Section 6 of the Act notified that the Seevalaperi Chatram Trust held 17.5% in the overall land while the huqdaars of the land held 82.5% of the land. It was declared that 93.074 standard acres held by the trust was found to be surplus. Statement under Section 12 of the Act was published in Tamil Nadu Gazettee dated 10.12.1986. Notification under Section 18(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 11.02.1987. It was declared that 93.074 standard acres equivalent to 323.78 ordinary acres held by Seevalaperi Trust were notified as surplus. The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli who was the assigning authority initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1965. Order bearing Roc No.C1/M-IV/A/PCO dated 30.04.1987 was issued. As per the said order, the surplus lands in Ariyakulam Village, Palayamkottai Taluk were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
ordered to be assigned in favour of the applicants named therein. As many as 116 individuals were identified and allotted. They were required to remit the land value in installments. Earlier, the government had assigned 82.20 ordinary acres of land in favour of Ramakrishna Thapovanam for starting a Women College vide G.O Ms.No.2361 Revenue Department dated 23.12.1988.
2.Aggrieved by these developments, the members of Dhalavai Family filed revision petition before the Land Commissioner. The revision was allowed vide proceedings dated 04.05.1987. Ramakrishna Thapovanam filed WP No.11793 of 1990 questioning the order dated 04.05.1987 passed by the Land Commissioner.
Sevalaperi Chatram filed WP No.835 of 1990. Two members of the Dhalavai family filed WP No.5661 of 1990. These writ petitions were transferred to Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Santhome, Madras – 4 and renumbered as TRP Nos.563/1991, 8/1992 and 9/1992. All the three petitions were heard together. TRP Nos.563/1991 and 8/1992 were dismissed. In view of the order passed in the said TRPs, TRP No.9/1992 was not pressed.
3.Challenging the same, Civil Appeal Nos.12090 & 12091 of 1996 were filed. During the pendency of the appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the land https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
owners submitted a compromise proposal before the Government of Tamil Nadu. The said compromise proposal was accepted by the Government. The same was recorded and the appeals were disposed of in accordance with the compromise entered into between the parties on 06.03.2003. Earlier, the dispute was regarding the character of Seevalaperi Chatram. While the huqdaars argued that it was a private trust, the government contended that it was a public charitable trust. In the compromise, the huqdaars agreed that Seevalaperi Chatram can be treated as public charitable trust and it is entitled to retain five standard hectares. The huqdaars also agreed to restore the assignment made in favour of Ramakrishna Thapovanam. What they wanted was retention of the lands in Ariyakulam Village. According to them, the surplus lands in Kaliyavur Village could be taken by the government.
4.On 01.03.2005, the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai called upon the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli to take further action and make necessary changes in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid Civil Appeals. The said communication specifically mandates the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli to make necessary changes in village and taluk accounts in respect of Ariyakulam Villages in respect of 90.05 acres of land which were declared as surplus and assigned to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
landless poor. Pursuant to the said communication, the Authorized Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tiruenveli issued proceedings dated 21.04.2005 transferring the lands assigned on 11.02.1987 and placed the same in the retainable area of the shareholders of Seevalaperi Chatram. The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai thereafter effected necessary changes in the revenue record on 16.05.2005. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) issued notice dated 30.06.2005 informing the assignees that assignments made in their favour will be cancelled. On 17.08.2005, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli issued proceedings formally cancelling the assignment of 229.32 acres made on 11.02.1987. Thereafter, G.O Ms No.98 Revenue Department dated 13.02.2006 was issued modifying the earlier notification published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 11.02.1987. The said notification speaks of 295.75 ordinary acres in Kaliyavoor Village and 82.20 ordinary acres in Ariyakulam Village. 82.20 acres in Ariyakulam Village has already been assigned in favour of Ramakrishna Thapovanam. It is true that the land owners had accepted the same before the Supreme Court. In the Seevalaperi Trust, 9 huqdaars were having interest. Their respective shareholdings are as follows :
1 Thiru.D.A.Ramasamy Mudaliar 36 Share https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
2 Thiru.D.A.Theetharappa Mudaliar 36 Share 3 Tmt.MDR.Kalyani Anni 43 Share 4 Thiru.MDR.Renganatha Mudaliar 43 Share 5 Heirs of MDT.Kumarasamy Mudaliar 86 Share 6 Tmt.MDS.Vadivammal Anni 11 Share 7 Tmt.MDS.Muthammal Anni 11 Share 8 Tmt.MDS.Kanthimathi Anni 11 Share 9 Tmt.MDS.Subbammal Anni 11 Share 288 Share Draft statements under Section 10 of the Act were published in various stages and one after another against various huqdaars/legal heirs. Final statement in respect of each of the huqdaars /their legal heirs was published in Government Gazette dated 26.12.2012. In the meanwhile, there had been alienations both by the huqdaars as well as the assignees. Petitions were filed before the Land Commissioner also.
Revised final statement under Section 12 of the Act was issued and published in Government Gazette dated 11.12.2019. In this factual background, various writ petitions came to be filed. They can be broadly be classified under the following categories :
a) writ petitions filed by the huqdaars
b) writ petitions filed by the assignees
c) writ petitions filed by the purchasers from the huqdaars https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
d) writ petitions filed by the purchasers from assignees Since the assignments made in the year 1987 were cancelled, the assignees as well as the purchasers from them felt aggrieved and filed the above writ petitions. The purchasers from the huqdaars felt aggrieved because the lands purchased by them had been included in the surplus landholdings. As far as the huqdaars are concerned, they had filed writ petitions only for concluding the proceedings and for issuance of patta.
5.Heard the learned Senior Counsel on either side.
6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assignees contended that when once the surplus lands had been identified and also handed over to the assignees, the government no longer had the power to enter into any kind of compromise in respect of such lands. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the compromise entered into before the Apex Court is nullity and liable to be ignored. He even characterized the conduct of the government as fraudulent. In fact, in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions by the assignees, it has been specifically pleaded that there was deliberate suppression on the part of the government. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
According to the learned Senior Counsel once this Court comes to the conclusion that the compromise entered into between the land owners and the government is nullity, all the consequential proceedings based thereon will have to be set aside. He relied on the decisions reported in (2008) 4 CTC 193 (Malarkodi v. The Secretary to the Government), 2007 0 Supreme (SC) 304 (A.V Pappaya Sasry v. Government of AP), (1996) 6 SCC 44, (2002) 4 SCC 628, (2007) 14 SCC 318, (2012) 7 SCC 318, (2012) 7 SCC 462 and (2012) 11 SCC 574. The learned Senior Counsel called upon this Court to allow the writ petitions filed by the assignees as prayed for. The learned counsel appearing for the purchasers from the assignees adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel.
7.Shri.V.K.Vijayaragavan, the learned counsel who appeared for the purchasers from the huqdaars submitted that they should be given the benefit contained in Section 23(2) of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the land owners submitted that this Court cannot upset the compromise entered into between the parties and which was given the seal of imprimatur by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He relied on Section 18(D) of the Act in support of this contention that the assignments made in the year 1987 cannot be taken as final and that they were subject to the decisions of any appellate court. In this case, the land https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
owners lost before the land tribunal but aggrieved by the same, they had filed civil appeals before the Supreme court and the Civil Appeals were disposed of on 06.03.2003 and therefore, the assignments will have to abide by the said decision.
That is what contemplated by the statute. His next argument was that if according to the assignees and purchasers from them, the compromise was fraudulent or is otherwise vitiated, the only remedy open to them is to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The assignees were very much aware about the compromise entered into between the government and the land owners in the year 2005. Hence, they ought to have moved the Supreme Court in the year 2005 itself. Without doing so, it is not open to them to challenge the validity of the compromise decree before this Court. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision reported in (2020) 6 SCC 629 (Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh). His yet another argument was that as a result of the compromise between the parties, the statutory scheme was in no way be frustrated. At the end of the day, what matters is that the land owners should not hold lands beyond a particular ceiling limit. This has not been breached by the compromise. The assignees cannot insist that they should be assigned lands only in Ariyakulam Village. When they have no legal right as such, it is not open to them to maintain any challenge before this Court. He would also point out that most of the assignees had alienated the assigned lands in sheer breach of the terms and conditions of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
assignments. In some cases, even before the expiry of the statutory period, the lands had changed hands. Such purchasers, according to the learned Senior Counsel, do not have any locus standi before this Court. He called upon this Court to dismiss the writ petitions filed by the assignees as well as the purchasers from them. He also added that there appears to be some internal dispute among the huqdaars. This can be worked out in separate proceedings and that ought not to come in the way of this Court from addressing the issue on hand.
8.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. As per the statutory scheme as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1970, an individual can hold 15 standard acres. Of course, this would be subject to the definition of the term “family” as contained in Section 3(14) of the Act. The trust as already noted is entitled to hold 5 standard acres. The jurisdictional RDO informed the court that as far as the villages in question are concerned, one standard acre would mean four ordinary acres. In this case, apart from the trust, there are nine huqdaars. Even if I ignore the definitin of the term “family”, still the trust and the huqdaars would be entitled to hold not less than 140 standard acres.
9.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the huqdaars would contend that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
the government itself had accepted that in view of the number of members comprised in each family, as many as 14 claims can be recognised. In Ariyakulam Village, 82.20 acres had been assigned in favour of Ramakrishna Thapovanam and the same has been accepted by the land owners. That leaves us with 251 ordinary acres in Ariyakulam Village treated as the retainable portion of the land owners. Since one standard acre is equal to four ordinary acres, the trust and the huqdaars are entitled to retain not less than 560 ordinary acres in Ariyakulam Village. What has been treated as retainable portion is only 251 ordinary acres.
10.Now the only question that calls for consideration is whether the orders cancelling the assignment can be allowed to stand. Even though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assignees and the purchasers from the assignees pointed out that this Court should ignore the compromise arrived at before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as nullity, I am not persuaded by the said submission. In the decision reported in (2022) 5 SCC 736 (Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N.Sailesh Prasad), the scope of Order 23 Rule 3 and Rule 3A of CPC was considered in the light of the earlier judgments. Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC states that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. The said judgment holds that party to a concerned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
decree based on a compromise has to approach the same court which recorded the compromise. The question as to whether this bar would apply in the case of suits filed by persons who were not parties to the compromise would not arise. This is because Order 23 Rule 3 CPC states that after the court is satisfied that there has been a compromise, it shall record the same and pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit. The assignees obviously claim only under the government. The government was a party to the compromise. The scope of the bar cannot be confined to the maintainability of an independent suit challenging the compromise decree. Even in a collateral proceeding, this bar is applicable. I hold that it is not open to the assignees and the purchasers from them to impeach the validity of the compromise based on which Civil Appeal Nos.12090 and 12091 of 1996 were disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 06.03.2003. The assignees should have moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court for appropriate relief at the earlier point of time. So long as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is holding good, the consequential orders cannot be interfered with.
11.Sections 18-C and 18-D of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling) Act, 1961 read as follows :
“[18C. Power of Government to cancel or modify notification https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 35/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
under section 18(1) in certain cases. - Where, as a result of any decision in any appeal or revision or other proceeding or in pursuance of a direction under section 18-A, the notification published under sub- section (1) of section 18 requires cancellation or modification, the Government may, by notification, cancel or modify such notification to give effect to such decision and nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the issue of a fresh notification by the Government under sub-section (1) of section 18 in accordance with the provisions of this Act.] [18D. Land not to have vested in certain cases. - (1) Where any notification,-
(a) is modified under section 18-B or 18-C, as the case maybe, by way of omission (whether relating to extent or survey number or otherwise), the land to which such omission relates, or
(b) is cancelled under section 18-C, the surplus land specified in such notification, shall be deemed never to have vested in the Government and the authorised officer shall make the necessary consequential modification in [the assessment roll] concerned. Any amount paid [under section 50] in respect of such land shall be recovered by the Government as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (2) The land referred to in sub-section (1) shall stand reverted with effect from the date of the publication of the notification effecting the modification or cancellation, as the case may be, to the person lawfully entitled to such land and any assignment of such land by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 36/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
Government to any person prior to such date shall be deemed to have been cancelled. No claim shall be enforceable in respect of such land against the Government or any person deriving rights from them, for the period from the date of the vesting of such land in the Government and ending with the date of reversion under this sub-section.] The aforesaid statutory provisions will have to be given their fullest effect. In view of the modification of the earlier notification under Section 18(1) of the Act, the lands that were originally declared as surplus should be deemed never to have vested in the government.
12.I cannot help remarking that the government did not act fairly in the matter. When lands had already been assigned, the assignees ought to have been informed. In fact, assignments should not have been made when the matter had not attained finality. But, it is too late in the day to even lament.
13.In this view of the matter, the writ petitions filed by the assignees as well as the purchasers from the assignees are dismissed. As regards the purchasers from the huqdaars and huqdaars, they can definitely avail the benefit set out in Section 23(2) of the Act. The question of issuing patta will not arise at this stage. In the very https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 37/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
nature of things, there will have to be enquiry into the respective claims. The writ petitions filed by the purchasers from the huqdaars are accordingly disposed of.
14.In the result, the writ petitions filed by the purchases from the assignees and assignees ie., WP(MD)Nos.4358 of 2022, 5600 of 2017, 22572 of 2021, 13849 of 2013, 14132 of 2019, 4086 of 2015, 5950 of 2022, 6651 of 2022, 6656 of 2022, 6713 of 2022 and 5931 of 2022 are dismissed. The writ petitions filed by the huqdaars and the purchasers from the huqdaars ie., WP(MD)Nos.5283 of 2007, 906 of 2008 and 7431 of 2013, 387 of 2007, 23086 of 2019, 24767 of 2019, 24772 of 2019, 16285 of 2013, 19028 of 2019, 20650 of 2018 and 21422 of 2016 are disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (AS) (*)Corrected as per the order of this Court dated 08/04/2024 // True Copy // /04/2024 Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-I / II / III / IV) skm To (*) To be substituted to the order already despatched on 07/03/2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 38/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
1.The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tiruvandram Road, Tirunelveli.
2.The Revenue Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
3. The Commissioner, Land Reforms Chepauk, Chennai.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Joint Commissioner, Land Reforms, Thiruvananthapuram Road, Tirunelveli.
6.The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District
7. The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli.
8.The Sub Registrar Burkit Manager, Tirunelveli District.
9.The Inspector General Of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.
10.The District Registrar (Admn ). Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
11.The District Revenue Officer Kokrakulam, Tirunelveli District.
12.The President, Ariyakulam Panchayat, Ariyakulam Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
13.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kokrakulam, Tirunelveli Dist
14..The Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Kokrakulam, Tirunelveli Dist
15. The District Registrar, Kokrakulam, Tirunelveli Dist +1 cc to Mr.R.Murali, Advocate in S.R.No.43408 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 39/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
+3 cc to Mr.A.Sivaji, Advocate in S.R.No.43472 +4 cc to Mr.Vr.Shanmuganathan, Advocate in S.R.No.43435 +1 cc to Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar, Advocate in S.R.No.43612 +4 cc to Mr.H.Arumugam, Advocate in S.R.Nos.43599,43598, 43596 & 43597 +8 cc to Mr.AR.Jeyaruthran, Advocate in S.R.Nos.43459, 43461, 43460, 43462, 43463, 43465 & 43464.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 40/41 in WP(MD)No.387 of 2007 : -
W.P(MD)Nos.387, 5283 of 2007, 906 of 2008, 7431, 13849, 16285 of 2013, 4086 of 2015, 21422 of 2016, 5600 of 2017, 20650 of 2018, 14132, 19028, 23086, 24767, 24772 of 2019,(*)22572 of 2021, 4358, 5931, 5950, 6651, 6656, 6713 of 2022
15.09.2023 RD(06/03/2024) 41P / 37C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 41/41