SAKUNTHALA Vs. COLLECTOR OF RAMANATHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Judgment:-The above writ appeals have been filed praying to set aside the order dated 16. 6. 1999 made in W. P. Nos. 57 to 59 of 1992 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) TRACING the history of the above writ appeals coming to be filed before this Court, what comes to be known is that an extent of 8100 sq. ft of land comprised in Town Survey No. 19 Resurvey No. 317/1a at Rajasuriamadai, which is a part of Ramanathapuram town originally belonged to one R. Chidambaranatha Durai; that his right over the said extent of land had been recognised by the Secretary of Ramanathapuram Samasthanam by proceedings dated 30. 9. 1951; that a piece of land, which is part of one acre of land, alloted to one R. Chidambaranath Durai, was sold to the appellant in W. A. No. 1115 of 1999 by a registered sale deed 8. 11. 1984; that from the date of purchase, she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same; that she has even plotted out the land and sold two portions and kept the remaining portion for herself; that in the year of 1985, the Ramanathapuram Municipality attempted to trespass into the said land, claiming that it was the Government poramboke land and the same was assigned to it by the revenue department; that the petitioner in W. P. No. 57 of 1992 filed O. S. No. 63 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramnad for declaration and perpetual injunction and the said Court, granted decree as prayed for, by its judgment dated 28. 11. 1986; that as the said judgment and decree was not challenged, the same has become final and conclusive; that on 17. 9. 91, the second respondent issued a notice of enquiry alleging that Survey No. 317/1a was Municipal Mangammal Chathram Poramboke and ground rent and patta had been wrongly given to the petitioner in W. P. No. 57 of 1992 and so she should submit her explanation as to why the ground rent and patta should not be cancelled, for which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation as to how the said notice was illegal and unsustinable; that by proceedings dated 03. 12. 91, the second respondent has passed an order, cancelling the patta stood in the name of the petitioner in W. P. No. 57 of 1992 and hence the petitioner filed W. P. No. 57 of 1992, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records in Na. Ka. B-5/72578/91 dated 3. 12. 91 on the file of the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram and quash the same as illegal.

(3.) THE further case of the appellant is that an extent of 8065 sq. ft of land comprised in Town Survey No. 19 Resurvey No. 317/1b at Rajasuriamadai, which is a part of Ramanathapuram town originally belonged to Raja of Ramnad; that the aforesaid extent of land, was sold by the wife of the said Raja Indira Devi to the appellant in W. A. No. 1116 of 1999 by a registered sale deed dated 3. 3. 1984; that from the date of purchase, she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same; that on 17. 9. 91, the second respondent issued a notice of enquiry alleging that Survey No. 317/1a had been classified as Municipal Mangammal Chathram poramboke and ground rent and patta had been wrongly given to the petitioner in W. P. No. 58 of 1992 and so she should submit her explanation as to why the ground rent and patta should not be cancelled, for which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation as to how the said notice was illegal and unsustinable; that by proceedings dated 03. 12. 91, the second respondent has passed an order, cancelling the patta stood in the name of the petitioner in W. P. No. 58 of 1992 with regard to 8 cents of land and hence the petitioner filed W. P. No. 58 of 1992, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records in Na. Ka. B-5/72378/91 dated 3. 12. 91 on the file of the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram and quash the same as illegal.