Skip to content


R.M.S.R.S. Subbiah Servai Vs. the Assistant Settlement Officer and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1969)2MLJ642
AppellantR.M.S.R.S. Subbiah Servai
RespondentThe Assistant Settlement Officer and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....officer declined to grant patta. on appeal, the settlement officer confirmed the order of the assistant settlement officer. the petitioner filed a revision to the director of settlements. the director of settlements by his order dated 31st october, 1965 set aside the order of the settlement officer and other subordinate officers and remanded the case to the assistant settlement officer, madurai, for fresh enquiry and disposal. the director of settlements also directed the assistant settlement officer to get the land inspected, find out the actual survey numbers and extent claimed by the petitioner, verify correlation with reference to the revenue records and tile documents of the parties and decide the claims under the appropriate section of the estates (abolition and conversion.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.S. Kailasam, J.

1. This petition is filed by a claiment for a patta for 4.12 acres comprised in S. No. 23/3 Palayur Village, Tirupattur taluk. The petitioner and his brother's son claim to be in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Assistant Settlement Officer declined to grant patta. On appeal, the Settlement Officer confirmed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The petitioner filed a revision to the Director of Settlements. The Director of Settlements by his order dated 31st October, 1965 set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and other subordinate officers and remanded the case to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, for fresh enquiry and disposal. The Director of Settlements also directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to get the land inspected, find out the actual survey numbers and extent claimed by the petitioner, verify correlation with reference to the revenue records and tile documents of the parties and decide the claims under the appropriate section of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. The reason for the order was that the claims of the petitioners before him were not considered individually. This order is challenged by the petitioner as beyond the powers of the Director of Settlements. Under Section 4 of the Estates Abolition Act, the Director of Settlements is appointed by the Government to carry out survey and settlement operations in estates and introduce, ryotwari settlement. Under Section 5 (2), the Director of Settlements is empowered to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. That the Director of settlements was authorised to hear the revision petition against the orders of the Settlement Officer is not disputed. The only contention is that, in a revision petition, he can either cancel or revise any of the orders, and cannot direct a remand. The section empowers the Director to cancel or revise the order of the Settlement Officer. Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to the hearing of the petitions by the Director of Settlements. The only power the Director has is that that is conferred under the Act. It is admitted that the rules do not confer any power on the Director of Settlements to direct remand. The director himself will have to dispose of the petition by cancelling or revising the orders of the Settlement Officer. Hence, this writ petition will have to be allowed.

2. In the result, the order of the Director of Settlements directing remand is set aside. The Director will take the petition on his file and dispose of the matter afresh according to law. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //