2025 (7) TMI 800

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vii. Agricultural Land measuring 1.00 Acre lying at Survey No. SF 91/2A1, 207/2A1 of Kalikappan Village of SRO Theppakulam acquired on payment of cash amounting to Rs. 81,000/- and registered as Document No. 3331/2006 of SRO Theppakulam in the joint names of S/Shri PKM Selvam and Sankaranarayanan and having a present guideline value of Rs. 20,00,000/- Sr. No. xxv. Agricultural Land measuring 4.74 Acre lying at Survey No. SF 207/2A, 91/2A1, 91/2A of Kalikappan Village of SRO Theppakulam acquired on payment of cash amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and registered as Document No. 2571/2008 of SRO Theppakulam in the joint names of S/Shri PKM Selvam and Sankaranarayanan and having a present guideline value of Rs. 94,80,000/-. Total area 5.74 Acre. 2. As per the facts of the case FIR No. 196/2012 dated 07.09.2012 was lodged against M/s. M.S. Granite wherein it is alleged that the said company had obtained a lease from Government in 1995 for mining in the area of 1.73.5 hectares at Village Keelavalvu Survey No. 267/2. The said company in addition to quarrying in the said lease land started quarrying in the unleased Government land in the South Western side without any permit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r dated 09.09.2021. The said Writ Petition granted liberty to the present Appellants to approach this Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated 04.07.2022. Accordingly, Appellants filed the present Appeals before this Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 09.09.2021, whereby their M.A. No. 46/2020 was dismissed and thereby declined to modify the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 3. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that Appellants are the legal owners of the two properties (mentioned in para no.1 above). However, no notice was ever given to the Appellants during the investigation of the case by ED, before passing the PAO No. 23/2016 dated 22.12.2016. He pointed out that they were not arrayed as Defendant even in the Original Complaint No. 674/2017 filed before the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation of PAO and hence no notice was issued to the present Appellants to protect their interest and thereby Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the PAO vide order dated 31.05.2017, which prejudice the interest of the Appellants qua their two properties as mentioned above. In order to show the genesis of the said two properties, Ld. Cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....proceedings conducted by ED and the Adjudicating Authority and the order dated 31.05.2017 was passed on their back without appreciating the fact that the appellants are the rightful owners of the land. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 31.05.2017 and the order dismissing the M.A. No. 46/2020 vide order dated 09.09.2021 needs to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Respondent ED strongly controverted the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant on the ground that they themselves transferred the cultivation rights in favour the accused persons i.e. S/Sh. P.K.M Selvan and S. Sankararayanan through the chain of their sub-lessees (as reflected in the flow chart) vide transfer deed dated 24.11.2006 and 24.06.2008, and hence, they cannot claim their cultivation rights over the attached lands (as mentioned in para no. 1 above). He further argued that they are not recorded owners of the land in the revenue record and their previous status was only as a cultivating tenant, which already stands transferred to the chain of sub- lessees, and hence, the right of tenancy has already stand extinguished. Accordingly, he asserted that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rson who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement. (b) the heir of such person, if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; (c) a sub-tenant if he contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; or (d) any such sub-tenant who continues in possession of the land notwithstanding that the person who sublet the land to such sub-tenant ceases to have the right to possession of such land; but, (iii) does not include a mere intermediary or his heir;" The Civil Courts (including this Tribunal) has no right to determine the cultivation rights of the parties and only the revenue courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate on this issue. In this regard, we hereby reproduce Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 as under: "Section 6. Bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts. - No civil Court shall, except to the extent specified in section 3(3), have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered by or unde....