SREEDHARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs 2 to 9 in O.S. 93 on the file of First Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry are the appellants. Plaintiffs filed the above suit against the respondents herein praying the Court to declare that they are absolute owners of the suit property in question and further direct the first defendant authority by way of mandatory injunction to correct the revenue, settlement and commune Panchayat records to incorporate the factum of ownership of the plaintiffs.

(2.) Briefly it is the case of the plaintiffs that plaint schedule property (a dry land comprised in Cadastre No. 1251 to an extent of 1 Hectare 29 Ares 60 Centiares i.e., 2 Kanies 42 Kuzhies and situated in Thavalakuppam in Anyankuppam Commune - 4 boundaries also given) originally belonged to erstwhile Government of France in settlement of Fondicherry represented by the then Governor. By virtue of a deed of assignment of title dated 20/10/1952 and registered on 22/10/1952, first plaintiff got title to the property and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, somewhere in 1957 when a branch of the then Government sought to make an untenable claim over the property, plaintiff took the matter before the Administrative Court in Pondicherry which upheld the right of the first plaintiff. Few years thereafter, that was in 1963 again an attempt was made by the Government and again the Administrative Tribunal upheld the right of the first plaintiff. In 1965, the third defendant's predeces- sor in office made a false claim over the property and for the third time the Administrative Tribunal rejected the said claim and confirmed the first plaintiff's title. On 10.1.1981 first plaintiff died and the suit property devolved upon the plaintiffs 2 to 9. The request made to the Revenue authorities to make necessary corrections in the records failed. This prompted the first plaintiff to institute the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction as referred supra.

(3.) The second defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit property bearing cadastre No. 1251 measuring an extent of 1-29-60 Ha in village No. 69, Thavalakuppam has been classified as a Commune Poramboke land as per Cadastral records. This land and a part of another Government Poramboke land bearing cadastre No. 1236 were resurveyed as R.S.No. 81/2 with an extent of 1-60-00 ha, and resurvey No. 81/2 was settled as a tank poramboke land. The suit property was assigned in favour of Thiru Perumal Gramini under folio No. 1326 of Thavalakuppam and treated as a patta land with effect from 13.10.1952. This assignment order was subsequently cancelled and the suit property was treated as a commune poramboke land with effect from 17.7.1963. Even though this was subsequently set aside by the Administrative Court, the suit property was expropriated for public puroses by a judgment of the Court of first instance dated 26.2.1954 and since then the property has been in the possession of the commune. The further case of the second defendant is mat though the land in question was assigned to the first plaintiff in 1952, the same was acquired subsequently for public purposes. That apart, the plaintiff also did not pay any tax to the Government for the suit property from the date of assessment i.e., from the date of assignment and that he is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on date. The plaintiff in fact approached the Deputy Collector to transfer the said property in his name. As directed by the Deputy Collector (Revenue) he approached the Director of Survey and.Land Recouds to register the said poramboke land in his favour. Since the Director of Survey, has no power to transfer any land registered as poramboke land in the cadastral records of Ex-French regime, the first plaintiff was informed to get the cadastral records corrected in his favour since according to paras II and XVI of the Scheme report of resurvey and settlement, resurvey has to follow the entries made in the existing cadastral records in the Pondicherry region published in Gazette No. 6 dated 8.2.1972. The suit property has not been registered in the name of the plaintiff and it is registered only as commune poramboke in the revenue records. The cession made in his favour had not been acted upon and the land is only a commune land.