Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMASWAMI CHETTIAR versus SPECIAL COMMISSIONER

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramaswami Chettiar v. Special Commissioner - W.A. No.433 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1739 (4 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED : 04.06.2007

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MR.A.P.SHAH, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI

W.A. No.433 of 2007

and

W.A.M.P. No.97 of 2007

Ramaswami Chettiar

Trustee of Pattathalachi Amman Temple

Maravarperungudi

Aruppukottai Taluk. ..Appellant Vs

The Spl. Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk

Chennai 600 005. ..Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated made in W.P.No.5839 of 1997 dated 29.04.2004. For appellant : Mr. P. Rajagopal For respondent : Mr. Raja Kalifulla, Government Pleader

JUDGMENT



( DELIVERED BY P.JYOTHIMANI,J.)

In respect of 2 Acres and 48 cents of land situated in Survey No.225 at Maravarperungudi, Aruppukottai Taluk, Ramanadhapuram District, in which the temple is situate along with Oorani, which is the source of water for the people in the Village, originally the patta was granted in favour of the appellant relating to the land categorised as Oorani, and subsequently, the same was cancelled by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The said order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was set aside by this court in W.P.No.1293 of 1978 and subsequently patta was given to the petitioner as per the orders of the Board of Revenue. Based on the same, the Tahsildar, Aruppukottai Taluk has carried out necessary changes in the Village and Taluk Accounts. It was, thereafter, having found that the Oorani was meant for public purpose, the Board of Revenue initiated suo-motu proceedings to set aside the earlier order of granting patta and after enquiry the patta issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The learned single Judge having found that the earlier proceedings of the Revenue Department in granting patta is not a bar for initiating suo-motu proceedings, held that in respect of the Oorani, which is a public belonging, no patta could be granted as per G.O.Ms.No.1300 dated 30.04.1971 and in view of the same, the impugned order was only rectifying the mistake. It is, as against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition, the present appeal has been filed.

2. A perusal of the records show, as correctly stated by the learned single Judge that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1300 dated 30.04.1971, there is a suo-motu power on the part of the Revenue authorities to initiate proceedings especially in the circumstances that show cause notice was given and enquiry was conducted and admittedly the property is a common property, and the same should be set apart for public purposes. In view of the same, there is no merit in the appeal; accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. kh

To

The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk

Chennai 600 005.

[PRV/10473]


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.