LAWS(MAD)-1998-8-122

DEVIKA RANI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On August 25, 1998
DEVIKA RANI Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND ACQUISITION, MADRAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, 67 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 293/2, Manamadurai Village, Sivaganga Taluk, belonged to her grand-father late Muthuswamy Pillai who died in the year 1939. She is the only heir of that person. During the year 1920, there was a land acquisition proceeding whereunder the land was taken possession by the first and second respondents for the requirement of Railways. Though the land acquisition notification pertained only to nine cents of land, the Government took possession of the entire 67 cents. An award was also passed only for nine cents of land for a sum of Rs. 1,666/-and 20 paise. Muthusamy Pillai died in the year 1939 and his son Sonamuthu Pillai left for Rangoon and came to India only in the year 1960 and he died in the year 1968. The petitioner's father Thangavelu Pillai predeceased his father Sonamuthu Pillai in the year 1944 itself when the writ petitioner was only one year old. ACCORDING to the petitioner, her widowed mother was employed in Khadi Craft and as she was holding a transferable post, she could not bestow her attention to the family affairs. After the death of Sonamuthu Pillai, the petitioner's mother had asked one of their close relatives to look after the lands and that thereafter they had no personal knowledge of the properties, and with the result, it was only subsequently it was known that an extent of 58 cents belonging to the petitioner's family had been erroneously takenover by the Government and handedover to the Railways for which no compensation was also paid. As soon as the facts came to her knowledge that the land was classified as Railway Poramboke, the petitioner had been corresponding with the authorities from the year 1986 to retransfer the entry in her name, but she was being driven from pillar to post without any fruitful result. Therefore, she filed W.P. No. 10923 of 1989 for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to retransfer the title of the property. K. Venkataswami, J. as he then was, while disposing of the said writ petition by order dated 21.8.1989 directed the respondents to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, no further orders were passed and hence, the present petition. Apart from the facts stated above, she would state that the fourth respondent had taken the property in an auction held by the first respondent in 1944. Certain allegations are made to the effect that the then Correspondent of the 4th Respondent, Vellayan Chettiar played a vital role in bringing the land in Survey No. 293/2 for public auction and succeeded in setting up the then Revenue Inspector and has manipulated the records as if an auction had taken place. It is also further contended that she had appealed to the Collector requesting him to set aside the auction proceedings. She would also contend that the lands continued to be classified as Railway poramboke and hence the transfer in favour of the fourth respondent as a result of the auction, was null and void and that therefore, the sale has to be set aside, and the property be redelivered to the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated that a report was furnished by the Tahsildar, Sivaganga recommending the transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) THE Tahsildar in his report after enquiry dated 7.5.1990 does not dispute the fact that only 9 cents of land were acquired as per the notification, but that the entire extent had been classified as Railway poramboke and had been subsequently sold in auction in 1944 to the fourth respondent. THE Tahsildar has also ultimately recommended that in view of the circumstances as mentioned in the report, the patta granted in favour of the fourth respondent may be cancelled and the patta be granted in favour of the writ petitioner herein.