Sri Vedaranyas Waraswami Devasthanam Vs. R. Sarajayen & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3372 of 1982.
Petitioner: Sri Vedaranyas Waraswami Devasthanam
Respondent: R. Sarajayen & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3372 of 1982.
Judges: E.S.VENKATARAMIAH & K.N. SINGH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 25, 1987
Head Note:
TAMIL NADU PUBLIC TRUST (REGULATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1961:
Sections 51(4) and 62 – Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 – Section 62 partially repeals the 1955 Act insofar as a cultivating tenant in respect of land held by him under the Public Trust – High Court not refering to the provisions of the Act – Whether there has been failure of justice – It is necessary to investigate into some factual aspects in the case – Case remanded to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in particular with the provisions of the Act.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
At the hearing of the above appeal Shri T.S. Krishnamoorthi Iyer, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to sections 62 and 51(4) and some other provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Trust (Regulation and Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 and contended that the respondents were not entitled to raise any claim on the basis of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. Section 62 of the former Act partially repeals the latter Act insofar as a cultivating tenant in respect of any land held by him under the Public Trust. He submits that the High court while disposing of the appeal before it had not adverted to the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Trust (Regulation and Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act 1961 and that there has been failure of justice as a consequence of the omission to refer to the said Act. On going through the relevant provisions of the said Act we feel that it is necessary to investigate into some factual aspects also in this case. In the circumstances we feel that it is appropriate to set aside the judgment of the High Court and to remand it to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in particular the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Trust (Regulation and Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court for fresh disposal in the light of observations made above. Parties are at liberty to raise all contentions available to them before the High Court even though they may not have raised them till now. Since the question involved in this case is of general public importance, we request the High Court to dispose it of as early as possible preferably not later than six months. The appeal is disposed to accordingly. No costs.
At the hearing of the above appeal Shri T.S. Krishnamoorthi Iyer, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to sections 62 and 51(4) and some other provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Trust (Regulation and Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 and contended that the respondents were not entitled to raise any claim on the basis of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. Section 62 of the former Act partially repeals the latter Act insofar as a cultivating tenant in respect of any land held by him under the Public Trust. He submits that the High court while disposing of the appeal before it had not adverted to the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Trust (Regulation and Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act 1961 and that there has been failure of justice as a consequence of the omission to refer to the said Act. On going through the relevant provisions of the said Act we feel that it is necessary to investigate into some factual aspects also in this case. In the circumstances we feel that it is appropriate to set aside the judgment of the High Court and to remand it to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in particular the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Trust (Regulation and Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court for fresh disposal in the light of observations made above. Parties are at liberty to raise all contentions available to them before the High Court even though they may not have raised them till now. Since the question involved in this case is of general public importance, we request the High Court to dispose it of as early as possible preferably not later than six months. The appeal is disposed to accordingly. No costs.
