Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.26 seconds)Section 21 in Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Executive Officer vs The District Collector on 21 April, 2023
(5).Arulmigu Paravai Annam Katharuliya Swamy Deity
through its Executive Officer Vs. District Collector, Virudhunagar in
(2015) 6 MLJ 39.
A.T.S. Chinnaswami Chettiar Etc vs Sri Kari Varadaraja Perumal Temple & ... on 22 September, 1995
In order to substantiate his
arguments, he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in A.T.S CHINNASWAMY CHETTIAR AND OTHERS Vs.
SRI KARI VARADARAJA PERUMAL TEMPLE AND ANOTHER
reported in 1995 supp (3) SCC 724 wherein it was held that the
High Court was right in setting aside the order of the Settlement
Tahsildar because the appellants therein miserably failed to prove
that the Respondent temple (Inamdar) transferred the lands by way
of sale. In effect, his submission was that unless there is alienation
by the inamdar, a Ryotwari patta cannot be granted under Section
8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act. Paragraph 16 of the said
judgment is relevant and it was held therein as under:
Joint Commnr., H.R. & C.E. ... vs Jayaraman & Ors on 26 October, 2005
"5.In the present case, when the lands
belonging to the temple were given to the
appellant's father only as a service holder of the
religious institution, the act of the appellant in
alienating the property is against the judgment
of the Apex Court in Joint Commissioner, H.R.
& C.E., Administration Department v.
Jayaraman and others [(2006) (1) L.W.
http://www.judis.nic.in
306], wherein, it was held that in respect of the
20
lands belonging to the temple governed by the
H.R & C.E. Act, no alienation is permissible and
even under the settlement proceedings, the
alienation of the temple property by third party
cannot be approved, if the property had been
dedicated for the purpose of the temple. In such
view of the matter, we find no reason to
interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge."
S.Nagaraj vs The Sub-Collector on 2 August, 2011
12.The learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3
submitted that the Sub Collector has the power to cancel pattas and
that the order in Revision is an appealable order. He further
submitted that unless an appeal or revision is filed, the order passed
by the Respondents 1 and 2 attains finality in terms of Section 46 of
the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act. He also referred to the judgment
of this Court in S.NAGARAJ Vs. THE SUB COLLECTOR, HOSUR
AND OTHERS in W.P.No.19955 of 2008 and contended that the
power of the Sub-Collector to cancel the Ryotwari pattas is implicitly
recognized in the said judgment. For this purpose, he referred to
paragraph 10 to 12, 23 and 28 of the said judgment. He further
submitted that the Petitioners did not obtain pattas after the order
http://www.judis.nic.in
22
of the Settlement Tahsildar and, therefore, the Petitioners names
were not reflected in the revenue records and that the temple did
not file an appeal probably for that reason. He submitted that the
judgments that were relied upon by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners 1 to 9, 12 and 13 were distinguishable because the Writ
Petitions were filed by the temple concerned in those cases and not
by individual Ryotwari patta holders.
Angappa Gounder vs Sivanmalai Gounder And Ors. on 3 December, 1986
15.In response to the said submissions, the learned
http://www.judis.nic.in
24
counsel for the 4th Respondent pointed out from the judgment of
this Court in (2009) 1 MLJ 93(cited supra) that it is necessary to
obtain patta and other revenue documents pursuant to the order of
the Settlement Tahsildar. It was also pointed out that a patta
granted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act does not create an
absolute right but only a notional right. For this purpose, he relied
upon the judgment of this Court in ANGAPPA GOUNDER Vs.
SIVANMALAI GOUNDER AND OTHERS reported in 1998 (2)
MLJ 225, wherein, at paragraph 9, this Court held that in so far as
Minor Inams are concerned, the vesting is notional and does not
extinguish the existing rights is an Inam land.
Hakam Singh vs M/S. Gammon (India) Ltd on 8 January, 1971
In HAKAM SINGH Vs. GAMMON
INDIA LIMITED, reported in (1971) 1 SCC 286, it was held, at
paragraph 4, that parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction
on a court that does not posses jurisdiction.
M.D., Army Welfare Housing ... vs Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd on 8 October, 2003
Similarly, in MD.ARMY
WELFARE HOUSING ORGANISATION Vs. SUMANGAL
SERVICES (P) LTD, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 619, it was held
as follows in paragraph 40: