Case Note & Summary
The review applications arose from a common judgment dated 09.03.2021 by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in W.A.(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011. The review applicant was M/s.Raju Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., represented by its Director; the first respondent was the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Vaithiyanathaswamy Temple, and the second respondent was the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Sivagangai. The underlying writ petitions had challenged orders relating to patta transfer and encroachment proceedings. W.P.No.23436 of 2002 sought to quash the first respondent's order in NEE.Mu.No.B3/318/2000 dated 18.03.2002, while W.P(MD)No.5640 of 2008 sought to quash the first respondent's order in Na.Ka.No.1987/2008/A3 dated 19.03.2008. The learned Single Judge allowed both writ petitions on 24.02.2010. Aggrieved, writ appeals were filed, and the Division Bench allowed both appeals on 09.03.2021, negating the contentions of the writ petitioners. The review applicant then filed the present review applications seeking review of the common judgment, particularly the observations in the last paragraph. The review applicant raised sixteen grounds alleging error apparent on the face of record, violation of principles of natural justice, misconception of fact and law, oversight of res judicata, and lack of jurisdiction of settlement proceedings. The review applicant contended that the patta continuously stood in its name and its predecessor-in-title, that the land ceased to be Inam land after resumption and settlement, that the earlier Division Bench in LPA (1970(2) MLJ 129) had held the character of the land changed and was binding, that Section 48-B of Tamil Nadu Act II of 1927 was not considered, that the Collector resumed both warams under Section 44(B) of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1927, and that the Joint Commissioner lacked competence to issue notice under Section 78(2) of H.R. & C.E. Act. The extracted portion of the judgment contained only the review grounds and did not include the court's analysis or final decision on the review applications. Therefore, no final holding could be determined from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 CPC - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Review Applicant contended that the common judgment dated 09.03.2021 was contrary to materials on record and suffered from error apparent, warranting review (Para 3). B) Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Principles of Natural Justice - Review Applicant contended that right to property is a constitutional right and cannot be deprived without following natural justice, which the Division Bench overlooked (Para 3). C) Land Laws - Patta Transfer - Audi Alteram Partem - Review Applicant contended that the patta continuously stood in the name of the Review Applicant and its predecessor-in-title, and the change of patta based on the opinion of the Government Pleader violated audi alteram partem (Para 3). D) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Binding Precedent - Review Applicant contended that the earlier Division Bench in LPA (1970(2) MLJ 129) held the character of the land changed and the land ceased to be Inam land, which was binding and barred the writ appellant's claim under res judicata (Para 3). E) Land Revenue - Settlement Proceedings - Jurisdiction - Section 48-B of Tamil Nadu Act II of 1927 - Review Applicant contended that the scope and effect of Section 48-B of Act II of 1927 was not considered, rendering the settlement proceedings nullity for lack of jurisdiction (Para 3). F) Land Revenue - Resumption of Inam Lands - Section 44(B) of Tamil Nadu Act II of 1927 - Review Applicant contended that the Collector resumed both warams on 21.07.1953 under Section 44(B) of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1927, which was not considered and constituted error apparent on the face of record (Para 3). G) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments - Encroachment - Section 78(2) of H.R. & C.E. Act - Review Applicant contended that when title to the subject property was under dispute, the Joint Commissioner was not competent to issue notice under Section 78(2) of H.R. & C.E. Act as if the applicant was an encroacher (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the common judgment dated 09.03.2021 in W.A.(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 suffered from error apparent on the face of record warranting review; whether the review applicant was denied natural justice in patta transfer; whether the earlier LPA finding was binding under res judicata; whether settlement proceedings lacked jurisdiction under Section 48-B of Tamil Nadu Act II of 1927; whether the Joint Commissioner was competent to issue notice under Section 78(2) of H.R. & C.E. Act
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 CPC
- Error apparent on face of record
- Principles of natural justice
- Audi alteram partem
- Right to property as constitutional right
- Res judicata
- Binding nature of earlier Division Bench decision
- Scope of Section 48-B of Tamil Nadu Act II of 1927
- Resumption under Section 44(B) of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1927
- Jurisdiction of Settlement Officer
- Section 78(2) of H.R. & C.E. Act
- Non-est settlement proceedings
