TAHSILDAR Vs. KANEEZ FATHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first writ petition is filed by the Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai challenging an order of the Settlement Officer, Chennai, dated 1.9.2008, wherein and by which the said Officer allowed the request of the contesting Respondents 1 to 9 for the grant of ryotwari patta, excepting the lands in which Government buildings are situated in terms of Section 15(1) read with Section 12(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and also in respect of the lands mentioned in Schedule A of the said order. They were granted patta and the petitioner Tahsildar was directed to change the accounts in the village land records. The said writ petition was admitted on 29.10.2009. Pending the writ petition, On the same day, this Court had granted an interim stay of the operation of the order passed by the 10th respondent Settlement Officer. Subsequent to the filing of the said writ petition, the Director of the King Institute of Preventive Medicine and Research, Guindy has also filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 4110 of 2010 challenging the very same order dated 1.9.2008. That writ petition was admitted on 1.3.2010 and directed to be posted along with the previous writ petition. Pending the said writ petition, an interim stay was also granted on the same day.

(2.) In both writ petitions, on behalf of the contesting respondents, a counter affidavit, dated 11.3.2011 has been filed sworn to by the first respondent. In W.P. No. 4110 of 2010, the Chennai Metro Rail Limited represented by its Managing Director got themselves impleaded as 11th respondent vide order of this Court dated 3.8.2012. It was stated by them that permission was granted to the CMRL for public purpose in G.O. Ms. No. 147, Planning Development and Special Initiatives Department, dated 27.8.2010 for construction of elevated Metro Rail viaduct. The 11th respondent was going to utilize approximately 6118 sq.metres on permanent basis in Block No. 9, T.S. No. 2 of Adyar Village, which is under the control of the writ petitioner King Institute and permission was granted by the High Power Committee and a Government order has also been passed to that effect. The King Institute had agreed to hand over the possession of a portion of the land for public purpose to an extent of 2063 sq.m. and that possession has been taken over on 18.10.2010, which was also handed over to the Contractor M/s. Larson and Tubro on 19.10.2010. The land has been vested with the 11th respondent CMRL. Therefore, it was stated by them that any order passed will have a bearing on their operation. Hence they were impleaded.

(3.) Before proceeding to deal with the merits of the contentions raised, it is necessary to refer to certain aspects which came up during the course of hearing of the writ petitions. In the impugned order dated 1.9.2008, the Settlement Officer stated that if any person is aggrieved by the said order, he can prefer an appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal within 90 days. But aggrieved by the wholesale handing over of the land, a suo motu review was taken up by the Commissioner of Land Administration read with Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The Commissioner by an order dated 20.9.2008 had passed the following order: