UMA MAHESWARI Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner's case is that the property measuring 9.33 acres in Survey No.50 of Tharmathupatti Village, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District was owned by one Palani Pandaram. The writ petitioner claims that he was her forefather. The said property was classified as Inam Dry and the Inam Title Deed No.881 pertains to it. It was given to Kuppusamy @ Thalai Muthu Pillai for rendering "Thanneer Pandhal Service". According to the writ petitioner, the said service is being continued by the descendants even till date. The writ petitioner has enclosed the extracts from the Inam Fair Register dating back to a century and beyond. On the strength of the said extracts, she would contend that Palani Pandaram was the original grantee and that the grant is still in force and that it has not been revoked till date.

(2.) When the Inam Abolition Laws came into force and a mechanism was put in place for conferring Ryotwari patta to eligible persons, the petitioner's forefathers failed to apply. But, failure to apply for ryotwari patta under Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 will not extinguish the writ petitioner's right. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner drew my attention to G.O (Ms) No.1300, Revenue Department dtd. 30/4/1971 which provided for making of application by those who did not apply for ryotwari patta in time under the 1948 Act. The Government thus enabled grant of patta outside the scope of the Act. But, the lands erroneously came to be classified as assessed waste dry and Government Poramboke. While the writ petitioner would claim that this mistake occurred when updating the Register, the authorities would claim that even before UDR, the land in question came to be classified only as assessed waste dry and Sarkar Poramboke.

(3.) Be that as it may, writ petitioner submitted a representation dtd. 11/3/2011 calling for issuance of riotwari patta in favour of the descendants of the original grantee. After submitting the said representation, the writ petitioner filed WP (MD)No.4687 of 2011 and by order dtd. 6/1/2012, a direction was given for disposing of the writ petitioner's representation. In fact, the Tahsildar, Thirumangalam was mandated to dispose of the said representation dtd. 11/3/2011. Pursuant to the said direction, the Tahsildar, Thirumangalam by proceedings dtd. 13/7/2012 recommended to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti for classifying a portion of the land in question. This was because, during the intervening period, the local body had planted a number of trees and a cart track had also been formed. Therefore, the said divided 50/2 alone was to be changed in favour of Mrs.Uma Maheswari, the petitioner herein. It was further stipulated in the said recommendatory proceedings that undertaking should be obtained from Ms.Uma Maheswari that the lands in question will not be alienated or otherwise encumbered.