High Court of Madras Hears Writ Petition Challenging Cancellation of Ryotwari Patta under Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The matter involves interpretation of revisional powers under Section 7(c) and the binding effect of earlier judicial orders on the same grant.

The petitioner challenges the order of the Commissioner of Land Administration cancelling the ryotwari patta earlier granted in his favour in respect of 8.28 acres in Padiyanallur Village, and seeks restoration of the patta as per the Assistant Settlement Officer's order dated 19.09.2011.

The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the first respondent's proceedings dated 27.11.2021 and direct the respondents to restore the revenue records reflecting the property as patta land as per the fifth respondent's proceedings dated 19.09.2011.

The first respondent, acting under revisional powers under Section 7(c) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, cancelled the patta that had been issued to the petitioner following earlier proceedings, holding that the original grant of patta by the fifth respondent was irregular and beyond jurisdiction.

The fifth respondent initially rejected the patta application on 12.06.2011 as time-barred, but this Court in W.P.No.15175 of 2011 set aside that order and remitted the matter, leading to the grant of patta on 19.09.2011. Subsequently, the District Revenue Officer cancelled the patta on 18.02.2019 without hearing the petitioner; that order was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.5648 of 2019 with a direction to the first respondent to exercise revisional powers, resulting in the impugned order dated 27.11.2021.

Whether the first respondent's order dated 27.11.2021 cancelling the petitioner's patta is sustainable in law, particularly in view of the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.No.15175 of 2011 which held that G.O.Ms.No.714 could not bar the grant of patta. Whether the first respondent could validly exercise suo motu revisional power under Section 7(c) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 after a considerable delay and after the earlier order of this Court had become final. Whether the principles of res judicata or estoppel by record apply to preclude reconsideration of the same grounds that were already decided by the High Court in the earlier writ petition.

The petitioner contended that the first respondent's reliance on G.O.Ms.No.714 to reject the patta was contrary to the earlier order in W.P.No.15175 of 2011, which had already held that the said G.O. could not bar the claim, and that the earlier judgment was binding on the parties. The petitioner argued that the suo motu revision under Section 7(c) could not be exercised after such a long lapse of time, especially after the High Court had directed compliance with the earlier order, and relied on the judgment in Rajathi and another v. The Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration, 2013 2 CTC 129. The respondents contended that the order dated 19.09.2011 was passed without jurisdiction and that the application was time-barred under G.O.Ms.No.714, and that the first respondent validly exercised his revisional powers under Section 7(c) to set aside the irregular grant.

Ratio not explicitly mentioned

The order dated 19.09.2011 was passed by the fifth respondent without any power or jurisdiction. As per G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments Department dated 29.6.1987, the claim was barred and the fifth respondent did not have power or jurisdiction to condone the delay in such a time barred application. This Court, considering the fact holds that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity before cancelling the patta. He was not given opportunity before cancellation of patta though the manner in which patta issued in his name may be under cloud.

The property underwent multiple transfers. The last three purchasers (Jagaram, Mohanlal, Dharamveer) applied for ryotwari patta before the fifth respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. Their application was rejected on 12.06.2011 as time-barred. They filed W.P.No.15175 of 2011, which was allowed on 30.06.2011, and the matter was remitted. The fifth respondent granted patta on 19.09.2011. The three purchasers then sold the land to Vidushi Wires Pvt Ltd on 30.11.2011, and patta was transferred. Vidushi Wires sold to the petitioner on 12.06.2014, and patta No.5902 was issued to petitioner on 25.11.2014. A complaint by K.Natarajan led to cancellation of patta by the District Revenue Officer on 18.02.2019. The petitioner challenged this in W.P.No.5648 of 2019, which was allowed on 16.09.2019, quashing that order and directing the Commissioner of Land Administration to exercise revisional powers under Section 7. The first respondent passed the impugned order on 27.11.2021 cancelling the patta. The present writ petition challenges that order.

• Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948: Section 7(c), Section 11
• Constitution of India: Article 226