9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction to determine the nature of the land for which a Ryot has sought a Ryotwari Patta u/s 11 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 is ousted or barred u/s 64-C of the Act? Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Civil Court's Jurisdiction and Section 64-C The common question of law in these appeals was whether a Civil Court's jurisdiction to determine the nature of the land for which a Ryot has sought a Ryotwari Patta u/s 11 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (the Act) is barred u/s 64-C of the Act. The facts in both appeals are similar, and the judgment primarily discusses Civil Appeal No. 474 of 1971. In Civil Appeal No. 474 of 1971, the Plaintiff-Madam filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against the State of Tamil Nadu, claiming long and uninterrupted possession of the land and an Order of Assignment from 1938. The Additional Settlement Officer had previously determined that the land was not ryoti land but Poromboke (communal land), and thus no Ryotwari Patta could be issued. The State of Tamil Nadu contested the suit, arguing that the land was communal and that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred u/s 64-C of the Act. The Trial Court and Sub Judge in appeal ruled in favor of the Plaintiff-Madam, holding that the land was ryoti land and the Civil Court's jurisdiction was not barred. The High Court upheld this decision. In Civil Appeal No. 1633 of 1971, a similar issue arose where the Settlement Officer had determined the land was not ryoti land. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Sub-Judge on appeal held that the land was ryoti and the plaintiffs' title was proven but ruled the suit barred u/s 64-C. The High Court reversed this, holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions, including s. 64-C and s. 11 of the Act, and the definitions of 'ryot' and 'ryoti land' from the Tamil Nadu Estate Lands Act, 1908. The Court noted that exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied, and even where jurisdiction is excluded, Civil Courts can examine if statutory provisions have not been complied with or the tribunal has not acted in conformity with judicial principles. The Court referred to the principles from Secretary of State v. Mask and Company and Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing that exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction requires clear legislative intent and adequate alternative remedies. The Court found no express exclusion in the Act and determined that the scheme of the Act did not imply exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction for determining the nature of the land. The Court held that the Settlement Officer's decision on the nature of the land under s. 11 is incidental and for revenue purposes, and does not bar Civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate on the real nature of the land in a suit for injunction based on title and long possession. The judgments in M. Chayana v. K. Narayana and O. Chenchulakshmamma v. D. Subramanya were distinguished as they dealt with different statutory provisions and contexts. The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's view that Civil Court's jurisdiction is not ousted u/s 64-C by the Settlement Officer's decision under s. 11 read with the proviso to s. 3(d) of the Act. The appeals were dismissed with no costs.
|
