R.JEYACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two writ Petitions have been filed by both father and son challenging the common order dated 04.06.2013 passed against them in Na.Ka.No.1755/2013/A by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, the second respondent herein and seeking a direction to respondents 2 & 4 to delete the name of the fifth respondent from the Town Survey Field Register (TSFR) of Adambakkam Village pertaining to Survey Nos.71/1 and 71/3 corresponding to T.S. No.184/31 and to restore their names.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailing the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, Chennai contended that when the petitioners were issued with patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer, if at all anyone aggrieved including the Government as per Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Convention into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') under Sub-Section (2), the Government may within one year or from the date of the decision and any person aggrieved by such decision may, within 3 months of the said order, appeal to the Tribunal.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that but in the present case, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram who has no power or authority or jurisdiction has wrongly cancelled the patta issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Therefore, when the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction either to consider or decide in the Town Survey Field Register (TSFR) in respect of the schedule mentioned properties, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, taking support from the order dated 31.07.1995 passed by this Court in W.A. No.473 of 1995, would submit that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to pass such an order.