1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:16.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P (MD)No.13046 of 2011 and M.P (MD) No.1 of 2011 Kalyani :Petitioner -Versus- 1. The Director cum Special Officer, Tamil Nadu Boodhan Board, 4th Floor, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The Director/Commissioner, Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai – 5. 3. The Thasildar,Thirumayam Taluk, Pudhukottai District. :Respondents PRAYER:Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus,directing the first respondent to conduct the enquiry relating with the gift deed dated 15.01.1957 made in favour of Boodhan Board by Meenakshi Achi as under Section 17 of Tamil Nadu Boodhan Yagna Act 1958 and to declare that the gift with respect of the entire punja lands of measuring 32 Acres 58 cents comprised in old S.No.103/1A and new S.No.103/6B in Meyyapuram Village Thirumayam Taluk in Pudhukottai District as found in the gift deed is invalid except to the extent of the property of measuring 1 acre 16¼ cents therein and publish the same in the Government gazette. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Surianarayanan For Respondents: Mr.R.Karthikeyan,Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above Writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry relating to the deed of gift dated 15.01.1957 made in favour of Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Board by one Meenakshi Achi. 2.Heard Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3.It is the case of the petitioner that one Meenakshi Achi executed a deed of gift dated 15.01.1957, gifting the entire Punja lands measuring an extent of 32 acres 58 cents comprised in old Survey No.103/1A new Survey No.103/6 in Meyyapuram Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudhukottai District. In the past more than 50 years no one has questioned the deed of gift. 4.But the petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of 35 acres 1 cent in new Survey No.103/6 in the same village under a registered sale deed dated 22.04.2009 from one Solaiyan and Kamalan, represented by their power agents. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act, seeking copies of the documents relating to the gift deed. After finding that the gift was not published in the Government gazette in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958, the petitioner came up with a Writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7492 of 2011 seeking a mandamus to forbear the respondents from entering into his property. But the said Writ petition was disposed of with a direction to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the 1st respondent to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner claims to have given a representation. But the 1st respondent has not so far passed any order. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above Writ petition seeking the above relief. 5.The main contention of the petitioner is that after the said Meenakshi Achi executed a deed of gift dated 15.01.1957, the Board was obliged to publish a notification in the gazette, in terms of Section 16(3) under Section 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958. Section 17 also provides for a hearing of objections raised by persons interested or affected by any declaration. The State Board is also empowered to reject the declaration of gift by a donor on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 17(8). But if the State Board chooses to overrule the objections, the Board shall also publish the order of the Enquiry Officer in the gazette under Section 17(5). Under Section 17(5), the order is also registrable with the office of the Sub Registrar. 6.Contending that the above mandatory procedure is not followed by the respondents before accepting the gift made by Meenakshi Achi, the petitioner has come up with the above Writ petition. 7.But the fact remains that the petitioner purchased the land in Survey No.103/6, only on 22.04.2009, at least 52 years after the execution of the deed of gift by Meenakshi Achi. Therefore, he is not a person who can question the acceptance of the gift by the Bhoodan Board. He is a subsequent purchaser, who has no right to question what happened 54 years ago. 8.The claim of the petitioner is also totally barred by delay and laches. The predecessors in title of the petitioner, never chose to question the gift executed in favour of the Bhoodan Board, on the grounds now raised by the petitioner. Once they failed to question the gift made by Meenakshi Achi, the petitioner cannot question the same. It is a fundamental principle of law that no one can claim a better title than what his predecessor himself had. The petitioner’s predecessors, never having chosen to question the gift, could not have passed on a better title to the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ petition has no merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Director cum Special Officer,Tamil Nadu Boodhan Board, 4th Floor, Panagal Building,Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The Director/Commissioner,Land Reforms, Chepauk,Chennai – 5. 3. The Thasildar,Thirumayam Taluk,Pudhukottai District. Nbj W.P (MD)No.13046 of 2011 RP/07.12.2011/2P/4C. 16.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/