N PADMANATHAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUNJA lands of an extent of 1. 21. 05 hectares in Survey no. 593/2, Veliyathur Village was classified as poramboke land. It was assigned in favour of one Rangarajan in proceedings dated 23. 3. 1967. According to the writ petitioner, the assignee had reclaimed the land and was in possession and enjoyment. He sold the land in favour of the petitioner by sale deed dated 29. 12. 1984. The writ petitioner claims to be in possession of the land since then and that patta was also transferred in his name on 25. 1. 1985. However, on objection by the third respondent, the Sub-Collector, Devakottai, cancelled the assignment in favour of the petitioner by order dated 3. 7. 1985. An appeal was filed by both the vendor and the petitioner before the first respondent. The first respondent, by order dated 7. 4. 1986, set aside the order of the Sub Collector on the ground that the order of cancellation had not been made within a period of three years from the date of assignment. However, the first respondent had initiated suo motu proceedings. It is also alleged that a petition was given on 29. 5. 1986 by the vendor to the petitioner allegedly at the instigation of the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the third respondent was a powerful person in the area and on his objections, without any opportunity to the petitioner, the order of assignment was set aside by order dated 30. 6. 1986.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the Special Commissioner (Land Administration), who set aside the order of the first respondent and remanded the matter to the first respondent. The writ petitioner filed W. P. No. 8956 of 1986 questioning the order of the Special commissioner. Even while the said writ petition was pending, the first respondent once again passed an order dated 16. 5. 1994. According to the petitioner, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the said order had been passed. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) THE trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for. THE appellate Court, however, held that as on the date of the filing of the suit, the plaintiff was not in possession and hence, had no right to obtain the relief. THE appeal was thus allowed by the first appellate Court. Hence, the second appeal.