Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Right to property is now a constitutional right. This right cannot be lightly taken away or deprived, without following the principles of natural justice. This aspect of the matter was over looked. Hence, the common judgment is to be reviewed.

7. The observation made by the Court in para 25 of the judgment is erroneous. It is submitted that even after resumption proceedings and settlement proceedings, the Revenue Patta stood in the name of Periyasamy Nadar under Patta No.399 then after his death, in the name of his heirs under Patta Nos. 399, 14, 864 and 404 and after purchase by the Review petitioner / 1st respondent under Patta No.399 and when such being the position, the Review petitioner has a valid and enforceable right to challenge the conditional order of Revenue patta transfer order issued by the Tahsildar vide proceeding Nee. Mu. No.B3/318/2000 dated 18.3.2002.

15. He further argued that patta for the subject land, never stood in the name of writ appellant, either before the settlement proceedings or after the settlement proceedings. It continuously stands in the applicant herein, earlier in his predecessor-in title and thereafter, in the name of review applicant. The Hon’ble Court in a misconception of fact had held that the Ryotwari patta granted in favour of the temple is correct based in the order of the Settlement Officer given resumption of property by the Collector the revenue patta stood in the name of Periyaswamy Nadar under Patta No.399 then after his death in the name of his heirs are after purchase in the name of the review petitioner, the review petitioner has a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )  REV. APLC. (MD)Nos.52 & 53 of 2023 valid and enforceable right to challenge the conditional order of revenue patta transfer dated 18.03.2002.