Madras High Court
A. Shankar Suresh, A. Rajeswari And ... vs Revenue Divisional Officer And Ors. on 6 September, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2007)6MLJ655
Author: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
JUDGMENT K. Suguna, J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed as against the order passed in W.P. No. 9446 of 1995 dated 22.11.2002. The petitioners in the writ petition are the appellants in this appeal.
2. The property in question is an agricultural land in the Melamadi Village, Madurai North. Originally they were given to the temple Archakaras of Kallalagar Devasthanam of Alagar Kovil, Madurai as a Service Manibam land. After the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 (Act 30 of 1963), came into force, an enquiry was conducted by the settlement Tahsildar and patta was granted in favour of one Pappammal. But on appeal, the same was cancelled. Consequential changes in the Taluk and Village records were made on the request of the sixth respondent infavour of whom, the same was originally given and a sum of Rs. 1,28,480/- was fixed as Fair Rent by the Tahsildar, Madurai on 17.07.1995 and the said amount was also remitted by him.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the sixth respondent become Pattayadhar of the land and he was in physical possession and enjoyment of the said land and further, he sold the said land in the year 1982 through three registered sale deeds covering 40 acres, 50 acres and 50 acres respectively on 09.03.2002 to the seventh, eighth and ninth respondents. The appellants have purchased the said land from the seventh, eighth and ninth respondents by way of three sale deeds executed on 27.05.1982. Subsequent to the purchase of the said land, the appellants were put in possession of the said lands and from that time onwards they were in continuous and uninterrupted enjoyment and possession of the said land. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, the sixth respondent after a period of 12 years made an attempt to obtain fresh patta. Meanwhile, the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam, the tenth respondent took proceedings for resumption of the lands and filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, against the sixth respondent, after having sold away the Inam land which was given for archagars service. The said petition had been filed by the temple under Section 21(7) of Act 30 of 1963 read with Section 41 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. During the pendency of the resumption proceedings, the Tahsildar basing on the orders of this Court in S.T.A.No.277 of 1976, issued orders dated 18.10.1994 in favour of the sixth respondent granting patta subject to the provisions of Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963. Challenging the same the appellants filed the above said writ petition. The writ petition has been disposed of with the following observation:
21. Bearing in mind the above state of affairs, I am inclined to record the following conclusions and order as follows:
(i) The petitioners have no right to question the impugned order as they cannot derive any better title than their vendors and hence not entitled to any relief. There is also no merit in the contention that they had perfected adverse title.
(ii) There is no justification to Keep the Resumption petition which was filed in the year 1993 pending till now, the rights of the parties have to ultimately abide by the result of the said petition filed under Section 21(7) of Act 30 of 1963. The Revenue Divisional Officer with whom the petition is pending is directed to forthwith commence the hearing after due notice to parties and dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are directed to co-operate and unnecessary adjournments shall not be entertained.
(iii) Though the impugned order is a consequential order arising out of the earlier proceedings, considering that the said order does not take into account subsequent events of illegal alienation by the sixth respondent, the said order requires to be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the Resumption petition filed by the Devasthanam.
Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed this writ appeal.
4. Subsequent to the order of the learned Judge by an order dated 22.11.2002 orders were passed in the resumption petition No.14908 of 1993 by proceedings dated 21.05.2003.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents
6. For the relief sought for, the parties have to work their remedies only before the civil forum. But while disposing the writ petition the learned Judge has given the finding given that the appellants does not have any right over the land in question and that the sale of the land by the sixth respondent to the appellant is an illegal transaction. As observed earlier, the prayer sought for in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal is, in fact, questioning the validity of the order of the fifth respondent dated 18.10.1994 by which patta was granted in favour of the sixth respondent. In view of the transaction taken place between the appellants and the respondents herein, this issue cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that apart, even the order passed by the authorities in resumption petition is also only basing on the orders passed in W.P. No. 9446 of 1995. Under such circumstances, the declaration given by the learned Judge, the transaction of the sixth respondent is an illegal transaction, we feel that this will have an impact in any proceedings which the appellants can raise challenging the order of the fifth respondent dated 18.10.1994 in Na. Ka. No. 14111/94/D1. As such, the order passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.9446 of 1995 dated 22.11.2002 is set aside. Consequently, the order passed in Resumption petition No.14908 of 1993 dated 21.05.2003 is also set aside since the same is passed basing on the order passed in the above writ petition. The Revenue Divisional Officer, the first respondent herein, is directed to decide the issue in question by not influencing by the observation made in W.P. No. 9446 of 1995 dated 22.11.2002, within a period of four months from the late of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are entitled to file the documents in support of their contention before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The appellant is at liberty to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum with regard to the order of the fifth respondent dated 18.10.1994. With this observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. Consequentially, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.