civil court is entitled to nullify an order of settlement officer under Madras minor inams act 1963
Citation
CDJ 2010 MHC 2425
Head note
Tamilnadu Minor Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1963 - Section 11, 3(b), 45 - suit properties were originally enfranchised as village service inam - After commencement of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 the inamtenure of the lands stood abolished and the land vested with the Government - There were no claims from any quarters with respect to those properties - Settlement Officer conducted a suo motu enquiry under section 11 of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion intoRyotwari) Act, 1963 - Settlement Officer, having found that the petitioner herein was in possession and enjoyment of the property, exercising his 'iruvaram' rights, directed to issue Ryotwari patta in respect of those lands in the name of the petitioner - petitioner was served with a memo by the Tahsildar stating that one Muralidharan and heirs of late Ramasamy Naidu and Bakthavachalam Naidu had applied for change of patta in their names - Writ Petition was filed by petitioner questioning the said memo - court quashed the memo holding that Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to enquire and change the name in the revenue records after the order of the Settlement Officer under the Act - Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed O.S.No.354 of 2009 against the petitioner herein praying for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction with respect to the suit properties - Thereafter present proceedings in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009 under the Act were initiated by respondents 1 to 6 along with interim application wherein an exparte order restraining the petitioner herein not to operate the order of the Settlement Officer was passed - Aggrieved by the said ex parte order, C.R.P. filed seeking to strike off the entire proceedings in the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
Court held - respondents 1 to 5, having completely suppressed the fact that a comprehensive suit was already filed before the competent court for the aforesaid reliefs, insisted that an appeal alone would lie questioning the order of the Settlement Officer and no forum can entertain the proceedings against the order of the Settlement Officer - civil court can nullify any decision arrived at by the Settlement Officer under the Act when the Trial Court found that there exist exceptional factors to take such a decision - Settlement Officer cannot decide the title to the suit properties now under challenge - No efforts were taken by the petitioner for issuance of Ryotwari patta in his name pursuant to the coming into force of the Act - respondents 1 to 6 could be classified as persons not interested by the order passed by the Settlement Officer - Though they are entitled to challenge the order passed by the Settlement Officer, the court finds that challenging the order passed by the Settlement Officer before the Special Tribunal after a lapse of 40 years more especially when a comprehensive suit was already filed praying for larger relief including the relief of nullification of the order under challenge would be an exercise in futility - respondents 1 to 6 cannot be permitted to continue the proceedings in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009, abusing the process of law at this distance of time - Pendency of the comprehensive suit and pendency of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal also would also pave way for conflicting verdicts - interim order passed in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009 stands set aside and entire proceedings in C.M.A is also struck off from the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge/Special Tribunal under the Tamilnadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, Coimbatore and consequently, both Civil Revision Petitions stand allowed.
Cases Referred
SRINIVASAN v. SRI MADHYARUNESWARASWAMI, PATTAVIATHALAI 1998 (I) CTC 630
Comparative Citations:
2010 (2) LW 394, 2010 (2) CTC 860
Court held - respondents 1 to 5, having completely suppressed the fact that a comprehensive suit was already filed before the competent court for the aforesaid reliefs, insisted that an appeal alone would lie questioning the order of the Settlement Officer and no forum can entertain the proceedings against the order of the Settlement Officer - civil court can nullify any decision arrived at by the Settlement Officer under the Act when the Trial Court found that there exist exceptional factors to take such a decision - Settlement Officer cannot decide the title to the suit properties now under challenge - No efforts were taken by the petitioner for issuance of Ryotwari patta in his name pursuant to the coming into force of the Act - respondents 1 to 6 could be classified as persons not interested by the order passed by the Settlement Officer - Though they are entitled to challenge the order passed by the Settlement Officer, the court finds that challenging the order passed by the Settlement Officer before the Special Tribunal after a lapse of 40 years more especially when a comprehensive suit was already filed praying for larger relief including the relief of nullification of the order under challenge would be an exercise in futility - respondents 1 to 6 cannot be permitted to continue the proceedings in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009, abusing the process of law at this distance of time - Pendency of the comprehensive suit and pendency of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal also would also pave way for conflicting verdicts - interim order passed in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009 stands set aside and entire proceedings in C.M.A is also struck off from the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge/Special Tribunal under the Tamilnadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, Coimbatore and consequently, both Civil Revision Petitions stand allowed.
Cases Referred
SRINIVASAN v. SRI MADHYARUNESWARASWAMI, PATTAVIATHALAI 1998 (I) CTC 630
Comparative Citations:
2010 (2) LW 394, 2010 (2) CTC 860
#minorinam
#temple
#jurisdiction
Comments
Post a Comment