LAWS(MAD)-2020-3-151

RAJALAKSHMI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

Decided On March 05, 2020
RAJALAKSHMI Appellant
V/S
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of late Smt.Ammani Ammal, have filed this writ petition praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the entry made on 13.12.1955 in the Settlement Land Register (S.L.R.) under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26/1948 (for brevity "the Act"), in the settlement records maintained by the Office of the first respondent in so far as it relates to Survey No.31/2, Ulaganeri Village, North Taluk, Madurai District and for consequential direction upon the first respondent, reverse the entry in

(2.) M/s.G.Thilakavathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the land in question was vested with one Srinivasa Iyengar, who was a ryot ever since 1930 and carrying on cultivation in the said land. After coming into force of the Act, patta was granted in favour of Srinivasa Iyengar bearing Patta No.18 and upon his death, an enquiry was conducted under Section 15 of the Act and entries were made in the SLR on 30.09.1955 by entering the name of Smt.Ammani Ammal, wife of Srinivasa Iyengar. During the update of the registers, an error had occurred in the "A" Register and the name of Smt.Ammani Ammal was omitted. However, this was not to her knowledge and during 2003, when she intended to settle the property, she came to know that her name has been omitted in the revenue records and the land has been classified as Anadeenam. A representation was given on 17.09.2003 to the first respondent stating that an error has occurred in the classification of the land and rectification was sought for. It is submitted that on 20.01.2004, the Tahsildar caused an inspection and submitted a report stating that the land was possessed and cultivated by

(3.) A writ petition in W.P.No.26153 of 2009 was filed challenging the said order. The learned writ Court found that the order was passed without affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner therein and therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration by order dated 23.03.2010. Once again, the first