HAMSAMMAL @ HAMSAVENIAMMAL Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submits that her mother Jagadambal and her brother Chandrasekaran applied for patta to an extent of acre 1.88 corresponding to paimash No.543/1, 543/1/1 and 544/1 in Ayanavarm Revenue Village under Estates Abolition Act XXVI of 1948. The corresponding revenue survey was 13 and subsequently resurveyed in T.S.No.27, Block No.2. The Settlement Tahsildar granted patta only in respect of acre 1.26 and rejected the claim for remaining 62 cents in the same survey number on the ground that it was not a ryoti land and that it was a water spread poramboke. The petitioner's mother and subsequently, the petitioner prosecuted several proceedings before the Revenue Officials for grant of patta but they were of no avail. At every stage the proceedings were also intervened by directions from the High Court in writ petitions filed on her behalf.

(2.) The petitioner further submits that in several writ petitions, the directions contained by the High Court in W.P.No.7935 of 2006, dated 22.03.2006 and in W.P.No.2052 of 20097, dated 20.01.2007 were significant. As per the order of the High Court in W.P.No.7935 of 2006, the High Court directed the second respondent to consider the claims of the petitioner for grant of patta outside the scope of the Act XXVI 1948. The petition had been dismissed by the second respondent and the petitioner had filed an appeal to the first respondent and it was pending. In the meanwhile, the third respondent attempted to take possession of the property on the purported basis that the property had been delivered to the Housing Board for construction of hostel for Adi Dravidar. The High Court, by its order dated 20.01.2007 directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal pending before him. Simultaneously certain other persons owning adjoining lands in T.S.No.12, Ayanavarm Village were staking claim for grant of patta in respect of the same property. Those persons had really neither title nor possession. As a matter of fact, in civil suits filed in O.S.No.5101 of 1968 and O.S.No.6643 of 1968 filed in City Civil Court against those persons viz., Chinnammal, Jadhavan and others, the civil Court granted a decree in favour of the petitioner on 18.08.1970 affirming the petitioner's possession and granting a permanent decree for injunction. The civil Court decision has become final in relating to the property between the petitioner and the aforesaid adjoining owners.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that in the proceedings before the first respondent, the claim of the petitioner as well as the persons claiming under Chinnammal were considered and the first respondent has passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner as well as third parties. The appeal has been dismissed essentially on two grounds viz., (i) that the petitioner has not given any proof for the fact that it was ryoti land and (2) that the petitioner has failed to prove her continuous possession of land prior to and on from the notified date set forth in G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue, dated 30.04.1971. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.