LAWS(MAD)-2021-3-276

R. MANI AMBALAM Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

Decided On March 24, 2021
R. Mani Ambalam Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in these writ appeals are one and the same, these writ appeals are taken up together and disposed of by means of this common judgment.

(2.) The unsuccessful writ petitioners are the appellants herein. S.No Name Case No. Case No. Village S.No Extent Classification 1. R.Maniambalam W.A(MD)No. 618 /2009 12.02.1996 Kazhanivasal 237 1.87.0 Hec. Government Dry unoccupied 2. S.Chellakannu W.A(MD)No. 697/2008 08.01.1996 Kazhanivasal 48 1.50 acres Forest Poramboke 3. S.Chellakannu W.A(MD)No. 698/2008 08.01.1996 O.Siruvayal 134 /2 3.50 acre Kuttivayal Kanmoi (Water Course) 4. S.Chellakannu W.A(MD)No. 700/2008 08.01.1996 Kazhanivasal 48 1.50 acre Forest Poramboke 5. S.Chellakannu W.A(MD)No. 701/2008 08.01.1996 O.Siruvayal 134 /2 3.50 acre Kuttivayal Kanmoi (Water Course) 6. Kaspar W.A(MD)No. 703/2008 24.02.1996 Kazhanivasal 69 0.32.0 hec. Sangasamuthraka nmoi (Water Course) 7. Jothi W.A(MD)No. 300/2009 15.06.1995 Kazhanivasal 104 2/4 0.02.71 hec. Channel Poramboke (Water Course) 8. Sheik Abdullah W.A(MD)No. 316/2009 18.01.1996 Kazhanivasal 552 /8 pres ent S.N o. 561 1.1968. 0 sq. Mtr. Quarry Poramboke 9. Chellakannu Rawther W.A(MD)No. 317/2009 16.10.1995 Kazhanivasal 120 /4 0.0079. 0 sq. mtr. Channel Poramboke (Water Course) 10. D.Srinivasan W.A(MD)No. 323/2009 28.08.1995 Kazhanivasal 171 /3 0.0125. 0 sq. mtr. Oorani Poramboke (Water Course) 11. Natarajan Chettiar W.A(MD)No. 324/2009 23.02.1996 Kazhanivasal 62/ 2b 0.0284. 0 sq. mtr. Channel Poramboke (Water Course) 12. Arumuga Udayar W.A(MD)No. 325/2009 28.06.1995 Kazhanivasal 944 /2 844.5 sq. mtr Manakattu kanmoi (Water Course) 13. K.P.MohanaSund aram M.Kavitha W.A(MD)No. 332/2009 30.06.1995 Kazhanivasal 498 /88 -A2 0.2541. 0 sq. mtr. Road Poramboke 14. S.Sivaraj W.A(MD)No. 229/2013 06.02.1996 Kazhanivasal 240 /1 0.80.0 hec. Govt. Dry unoccupied

(3.) Fraud vitiates everything. If an order is vitiated by fraud, it does not attain finality and it can be set at naught by a proper proceedings.