Madras High Court
Parvathiammal vs N.Adikesavan on 30 November, 2022
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 30.11.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
Writ Appeal Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
and
C.M.P.No.20540 of 2022 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.A.No.844 of 2011
1. Parvathiammal
2. Santhanammal
both the appellants rep. by their
Power of Attorney Agent Mr.B.Balakrishnan @ Parthe Basker
.. Appellants in
W.A.No.844 of 2011
1. N.Adikesavan (died)
2. A.Ravindrakumar
3. Shanthakumari Raj
4. Shayam Kumar
(Appellants 2 to 4 are brought on record
as Legal Representatives of the
deceased first appellant,
vide - order of Court, dated 14.11.2022
in C.M.P.No.16416 of 2022 in
W.A.No.845 of 2011) .. Appellants in
W.A.No.845 of 2011
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
1. K.Thirunavukkarasu (died)
2. K.Killiammal (died)
3. K.Maduraimuthu
4. K.Karunakaran
5. K.Mahalingam
6. K.Ramadoss
7. T.Kokila
8. T.Ashok Raj
9. T.Ramya
10. T.Rajalakshmi
(Appellants 7 to 10 are brought on record as
Legal Representatives of the deceased first appellant-
Vide - Court Order dated 30.09.2022
made in C.M.P.No.10393 of 2022
in W.A.No.1314 of 2011)
.. Appellants in
W.A.No.1314 of 2011
-Vs-
1. N.Adikesavan
2. Chinnayan
3. Jayaraman
4. Mangaliammal
Pannerselvam (deleted)
5. Doss
Muthaian (deleted)
Muthulakshmi (deleted)
Kannan (deleted)
6. Ravi
7. Rukmani
8. Gowri
9. Mohan
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
Valmurthy (deleted)
Dilipkumar (deleted)
Neelakandan (deleted)
10. Logammal
Sakunthala (deceased)
11. Ravayammal
12. Saraswathi
13. Omprakash
14. Sundararaj
15. Sivaraj
16. Kalaivani
17. Murugesh
18. M.Linga Ganapathy
19. The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
20. The Commissioner and Director of
Survey and Settlement,
Chennai-600 005.
21. The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur.
22. The Assistant Settlement Officer,
Thiruvannamalai.
23. Sri Krishna Tiles Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd.,
No.25, 4th Street, Abhiramapuram,
Chennai-600 018.
24. M/s.Ozone Construction Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Mr.S.Vasudevan,
having their Registered Office at
No.63, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
(Respondent Nos.4, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 are
not necessary parties - given up) .. Respondents in
W.A.No.844 of 2011
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
1. Chinnayan
2. Jayaraman
3. Mangaliammal
Pannerselvam (deleted)
4. Doss
Muthian (deleted)
Muthulakshmi (deleted)
Kannan (deleted)
5. Parvathiammal
6. Ravi
7. Rukmani
8. Gowri
9. Mohan
Valmurthy (deleted)
Dilipkumar (deleted)
Neelakandan (deleted)
10. Logammal
Sakunthala (deceased)
11. Ravayammal
12. Santhanammal
13. Saraswathi
14. Omprakash
15. Sundararaj
16. Sivaraj
17. Kalaivani
18. Murugesh
19. M.Linga Ganapathy
20. The Commissioner of Land
Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
21. The Commissioner and Director
of Survey and Settlement,
Chennai-600 005.
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
22. The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur.
23. The Assistant Settlement Officer
Thiruvannamalai.
24. Sri Krishna Tiles Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd.,
No.25, 4th Street,
Abhiramapuram,
Chennai-600 018.
25. M/s.Ozone Construction Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Mr.S.Vasudevan,
having their Registered Office at
No.63, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Respondents in
W.A.No.845 of 2011
1. The Special Commissioner
and Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner and Director
of Survey and Settlement, Chennai.
3. The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur.
4. The Assistant Settlement Officer,
Thiruvannamalai.
5. Sri Krishna Tiles Potteries Madras Pvt. Ltd., Chennai.
6. B.Balakrishnan .. Respondents in
W.A.No.1314 of 2011
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
Writ Appeal No.844 of 2011 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 07.04.2011 in Writ Petition No.12613 of
2001, on the file of this Court, passed by the learned Single Judge.
Writ Appeal No.845 of 2011 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 07.04.2011 in Writ Petition No.12613 of
2001, on the file of this Court, passed by the learned Single Judge.
Writ Appeal No.1314 of 2011 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 07.04.2011 in Writ Petition No.24522 of
2001, on the file of this Court, passed by the learned Single Judge.
For appellants in W.A.No.844 of 2011: No appearance
For appellants in W.A.No.845 of 2011: Mr.V.Manohar
For appellants in W.A.No.1314 of 2011: Mr.A.Malaichamy
For respondents in W.A.No.844 of 2011:
R3 : Mr.Kuberan for
M/s.Rank Associates
R24 : Mr.R.Swaminathan
RR 19 to 22 : Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan
Spl.Govt.Pleader
For respondents in W.A.No.845 of 2011:
RR 1 to 4 : Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan
Spl.Govt.Pleader
R24 : Mr.Kuberan for
M/s.Rank Associates
R25 : Mr.R.Swaminathan
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
For respondents in W.A.No.1314 of 2011:
RR 1 to 4 : Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan
Spl.Govt.Pleader
R5 : Mr.Kuberan for
M/s.Rank Associates
Common Judgment
(Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.Sundar,J)
All these three Writ Appeals are connected with each other and they
arise out of the common order passed by a learned Single Judge of this
Court on 07.04.2011 in W.P.Nos.12613 and 24522 of 2001.
2.The appellants 1 to 6 in W.A.No.1314 of 2011 are the petitioners in
W.P.No.24522 of 2001. The deceased second petitioner in W.P.No.24522
of 2001, who is the 2nd appellant, is shown as dead in the cause title even in
the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1314 of 2011. The legal heirs of 1st appellant
were brought on record as appellants 7 to 10 during pendency of appeal.
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
3.The appellants in W.A.No.844 of 2011 are the petitioners 10 and 21
in W.P.No.12613 of 2001.
4.The appellant in W.A.No.845 of 2011 is the 1st petitioner in
WP.No.12613/2001. He died during the pendency of the appeal and his
legal representatives were impleaded as the appellants 2 to 4 by the order of
this Court in C.M.P.No.16416 of 2022, dated 14.11.2022.
5.The appellants (respective writ petitioners) along with others, filed
two Writ Petitions in WP.Nos.12613 and 24522/2001 challenging the order
passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, dated
14.05.2001. The further prayer in WP.No.24522/2001 is to direct the
respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.No.24522 of 2001 to issue patta in the name of
the writ petitioners, in respect of the properties measuring an extent of 2.52
acres in S.Nos.229/1A and 230/7A in Koyambedu Village in erstwhile
Chengaplet District.
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
6.The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of these three Writ
Appeals are as follows:
(a) The Village Koyambedu (in erstwhile Chengalpet District) was an
Inam Estate and the adjacent village Thirumangalam was a Jamin Estate
within the meaning of Estate under the Madras Estates (Abolition and
Conversion in to Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948) and the
properties in the two villages were notified under Act 26 of 1948
(hereinafter called as 'the Act').
(b) By G.O.No.3157, Revenue Department, dated 09.12.1950, and
vide G.O.No.2302 dated 01.09.1951, the villages were notified and taken
over under the Act.
(c) One Kalpagammal, wife of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer purchased
several properties in Koyambedu Village and Thirumangalam Village
including the land which is the subject matter of these Writ Appeals under a
few sale deeds executed by erstwhile ryots in respect of their Kudivaram
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
right. One Amavasai and Alavattan along with their legal heirs of one
Alavatan who were holding Kudivaram right executed five Sale Deeds in
favour of Smt.Kalpagammal. By virtue of two Sale Deeds vide Doc.Nos.8
of 1929 and 231 of 1930, dated 31.12.1929, a Sale Deed [Doc.No.791 of
1930] dated 16.06.1930, a Sale Deed [vide Doc.No.653 of 1931] dated
30.05.1931 and a Sale Deed [vide Doc.No.953 of 1931] dated 15.07.1931,
the kudiwaram right was transfered in the name of Smt.Kalpagammal, wife
of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer.
(d) After the lands were notified and taken over under the Act, the
settlement proceedings were initiated and it is admitted that by proceedings
of the Assistant Settlement Tahsildar, Chitthoor, dated 31.07.1952, ryotwari
patta was granted to the said Ranganatha Iyer. It is admitted that
Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer was the erstwhile Zamindar of Thirumangalam as
he had acquired the said right by a document. He appears to have purchased
private Kambatham lands [about 200 acres] apart from the 5 Sale Deeds in
the name of his wife between 1929 and 1945. Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer also
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
issued patta in respect of the entire lands in favour of his sons to show that
the lands are in the physical enjoyment of his sons and claimed ryotwari
patta during settlement that he is entitled to patta in respect of private
kambatham lands under Section 12[a][i] and for the remaining lands under
Section 12[b][ii] having acquired the same from the ryots. All the children
of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer have consented before the Assistant Settlement
Officer for issuing ryotwari patta in favour of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer.
This ryotwari patta was given in respect of the entire lands purchased in the
name of his wife from Amavasai and Alavatan vahaiyara as per proceedings
of Assistant Settlement Officer dated 31.07.1952. It is admitted that wife of
Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer died long before the settlement proceedings.
(e)Several decades after the Ryotwari Patta was issued in favour of
Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer, a few persons who represented the family of one
Amavasai and Alavattan, who had executed the sale deeds in favour of the
wife of A.K.Ranganatha Iyer, filed an application before the Assistant
Settlement Officer claiming Ryotwari Patta in respect of an extent of 2.29
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
acres in New Survey No.229/1A and 2.06 acres in S.No.230/7A in
Thirumangalam Village in the Koyambedu-Nungambakkam Taluk.
Though the delay was more than 4 decades, the delay was referred to
Director of Survey and Settlement, who condoned the delay and directed the
Assistant Settlement Officer to take necessary action.
(f) It is admitted that one Sri.Ezhumalai and 20 others through their
Power Agent, by name R.Chandrasekaran and one other person, by name
Sri.Balakrishnan, son of R.D.Bhaskar, submitted the application as if one
Amavasai and others, who are the erstwhile owners of the land, died leaving
behind them as legal heirs, and that the land was wrongly registered in the
name of A.K.Ranganatha Iyer and A.R.Rajagopalan during settlement
proceedings. It is pertinent to mention that Sri.Elumalai and others, put
forth their claim only as legal heirs of Amavasai and Alavattan on the
strength of the Sale Deeds executed by one Vedammal under Doc.No.1702
and Doc.No.1703 of 1914 dated 13.11.1914, suppressing the alienations by
their predecessors in title conveying their Kudivaram right under registered
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
Sale Deeds.
(g)From a reading of the order dated 31.07.1998 passed by the
Assistant Settlement Officer, it is seen that the applications were submitted
by the said Elumalai and others and one Balakrishnana claiming Ryotwari
Patta in respect of an extent of 2.28 acres in S.No.229/1A and also an extent
of 2.06 acres in S.No.230/7 in Thirumangalam Village, Koyambedu, as the
legal representatives of the previous owners, without referring to any
transaction or any statement of facts justifying a claim through the persons
in favour of whom Ryotwari Patta had already been issued by the Settlement
Authority in 1952. When the application filed before the Assistant
Settlement Officer was pending, the writ petitioners (herein) approached
this Court and obtained direction for early disposal of the representation of
the petitioners and accordingly, the Assistant Settlement Officer conducted
an enquiry and found that the Ryotwari Patta in respect of the land to which
the applicants claim Ryotwari Patta, had already been dealt with and
Ryotwari Patta had also been issued in favour Thiru.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer
13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
Iyer under Section 12(a)(i) and 12[b][ii] of the Act. Since Ryotwari patta
had been granted in favour of land holder having Kudivaram right by Sale
Deeds executed by Amavasai and Alavatan and others, the Assistant
Settlement Officer held that the claim for Ryotwari patta under Section
11[a] of Act 26 of 1948 is not sustainable.
(h) The Assistant Settlement Tahsildar, while passing an order, has
referred to the character of the properties and how A.K.Ranganatha Iyer Iyer
was given Ryotwari Patta as landholder who acquired the kudivaram right.
It is observed that none of the claimants have established their right or
enjoyment. It is pertinent to mention that none of the claimants who derived
title from the vendors of A.K.Ranganatha Iyer's wife would plead how any
property is left with their predecessors after the five Sale Deeds.
(i) In the meanwhile, the aggrieved persons claiming to be the legal
heirs of the previous owners, namely Amavasai and Alavattan filed a Civil
Suit in O.S.No.5836 of 1998 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, for
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
permanent injunction restraining the defendant/Sri Krishna Tiles and
Potteries from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the
properties in question. During the pendency of the suit, an application was
filed in I.A.No.13847 of 1998 in O.S.No.5836 of 1998 before the City Civil
Court, Chennai for temporary injunction and the same was also dismissed
by order dated 09.10.1998. It is now stated by the learned counsel appearing
for the contesting respondents that the said suit was dismissed as not
pressed long back and no application is filed to restore the suit on file. It is
also admitted before this Court that the suit filed by the so-called legal heirs
of original owner, was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is also on record
that two other suits filed by other persons claiming through Amavasai and
Alavattan in OS.No.2461/1992 and 3925/1993 were dismissed. Despite the
claim made some of by the writ petitioners as legal heirs of the original
ryots, namely Amavasai and Alavattan being negatived by Civil Court, they
filed a revision petition before the Settlement Officer as against the order
passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, rejecting the claim of
Sri.Elumalai and 20 others and one Balakrishnan. The Revision Petition
15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
filed before the Settlement Officer was dismissed by order dated
19.11.1998.
(j) The Settlement Officer, by order dated 19.11.1998, rejected the
petition on the ground that the revision petition is not maintainable, as the
same was not filed within 30 days from the date of the order passed by the
Assistant Settlement Officer. It was observed by the Settlement Officer that
he is not empowered to pass the order condoning the delay in filing the
revision petition. He dismissed the revision only on the ground of
limitation. The said order of the Settlement Officer was challenged by the
writ petitioners and others before the Commissioner and Director of Survey
and Settlement, Chennai. Before the Commissioner and Director of Survey
and Settlement, the petition filed by B.Balakrishnan was entertained as a
revision petition under Section 11(a) of the Act.
(k) It is to be noted that in the revision petition stated to have been
filed by the power of attorney agent of writ petitioners before the
16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, against the order of
the Settlement Officer, dated 10.11.1998, there is no reference to the order
passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer granting Ryotwari Patta in favour
of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer in 1952.
(l) By an order dated 05.07.1999, the Commissioner and Director of
Survey and Settlement, Chennai, namely the second respondent herein,
allowed the revision petition. The Settlement Officer rejected the Appeal
only on the ground of limitation. However, the Director of Survey and
Settlement ignoring admitted facts and the legal implications of previous
proceedings which have become final passed an order by placing facts
contrary to records. The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement directed
grant of patta for 1.76 acres in S.No.229/1A and 3.00 Acres in S.No.230/7A
in favour of revision petitioner Thiru.B.Balakrishnan who is just the power
of attorney holder as if the power of attorney holder is entitled to patta out
of the excess area which remained unsettled under section 11[a] of Act 26
of 1948. Patta stands in the name of M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries, the 5th
17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
respondent in WA.No.1314/2011 was directed to be revised and modified
accordingly. It is surprising to note that the petitioner maintained in his
petition that ryotwari patta had been wrongly given but the revision is
entertained as a petition in respect of lands which were unsettled under
Section 11[a] of the Act.
(m) As against the said order of the Commissioner and Director of
Survey and Settlement, the fifth respondent before the Writ Court, filed a
revision petition before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of
Land and Administration, Chennai. By a reasoned order, the Commissioner
of Land Administration set aside the order of the Commissioner and
Director of Survey and Settlement and allowed the revision petition filed by
M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Private Limited who had
purchased the properties from persons who got ryotwari patta during
settlement.
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
(n) The Commissioner of Land Administration, while setting aside the
order of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, has
referred to the original documents of title and the proceedings throughout
indicating that the said M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries have acquired the
property(ies) from the persons who were given Ryotwari Patta in the year
1952 during settlement under the Act.
(o) The said order of the Special Commissioner of Land
Administration, dated 14.05.2001, is challenged before the learned Single
Judge in the respective Writ Petitions, as indicated above, and both the Writ
Petitions were dismissed by the Writ Court.
(p) The learned Single Judge found that the order of the
Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement is quite contrary to
the provisions of the Act and that the order of Commissioner of Land
Administration is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that the
19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
appellants are not entitled to any right over the properties, to which the fifth
respondent's predecessor in interest was given Ryotwari Patta.
(q) The fifth respondent in the Writ Petition, namely M/s.Krishna
Tiltes and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., sold the property(ies), which is the
subject matter of these present Writ Appeals, in favour of M/s.Ozone
Constructions Pvt. Ltd., who is impleaded as respondent No.12 in
W.P.No.12613 of 2021.
(r) The learned Single Judge, while considering the merits of the
claim of the writ petitioners, found that the writ petitioners have not made
out a case to show how ryotwari patta was wrongly given in 1952.
(s) It is to be pointed out that in the revision petition filed by the
aggrieved persons who claim to be the legal heirs of the original owners,
have filed application before the Assistant Settlement Officer to revise the
order granting patta in favour of others. However, the fact that the
20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
application was filed by the legal heirs of the original owner under Section
11 of the Act is not in dispute. Therefore, the learned Single Judge found
that the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement, namely the second
respondent in the Writ Petition, reopening the case in 1996 on the ground
that the application ought to have been considered under Section 11 of the
Act, is erroneous.
(t) Finding that the Settlement Officer has only rejected the revision
petition on the ground of limitation and that the revision petition is not filed
against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer passed in 1952, but
against the order of the Settlement Officer, rejecting the appeal, the learned
Single Judge found that the order of Commissioner and Director of Survey
and Settlement is erroneous and without jurisdiction.
(u) It is to be noted that the Assistant Settlement Officer granted
Ryotwari Patta in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the fifth
respondent only under Section 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act in the year
21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
1952 and hence, the learned Single Judge held that the second respondent,
namely the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement has no
power or jurisdiction to suo-motu review the order under Section 5(2) of the
Act as the power under Section 5[2] of Act 26 of 1948 can be exercised
only when there is no remedy of appeal and an appeal lies before Tribunal
as against the order passed under Section 12 of the Act granting ryotwari
patta in favour of landholder.
(v) The learned Single Judge further considered the issues on merits
and found that no documents or materials are produced before the
authorities below for grant of Ryotwari Patta in favour of the writ
petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest. Challenging the said order
passed by the learned Single Judge, the above Writ Appeals are filed before
this Court.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.844
and 845 of 2011 made the following submissions:-
22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
(a) A Preliminary objection was raised at the time when the Writ
Petition was filed and the learned Single Judge of this Court has over-ruled
the objection. Referring to the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.75
of 2008 in W.P.No.12613 of 2011, learned counsel submitted that the
position regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petitions, was considered
by this Court at the interlocutory stage itself and therefore, the jurisdiction
or authority of the Commissioner/Director of Survey and Settlement who
had cancelled or revised the orders of the Settlement Officer, cannot be
considered by this Court at the time of disposing the main Writ Petition.
(b) The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petitions,
failed to consider the fact that the Assistant Settlement Officer granted
Ryotwari Patta by order dated 31.07.1952 without any jurisdiction. Since
the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting Ryotwari Patta in
favour of the contesting respondents, the predecessor-in-tile of the
contesting respondents, is non-est in law and the order passed by the
Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement is perfectly in order,
23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
the impugned order that is challenged in the Writ Petition, passed by the
Commissioner of Land Administration, is erroneous and unsustainable in
law.
(c) The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement has
suo-motu power and jurisdiction to revise the order of the Settlement
Officer, which was challenged before him, in view of the power conferred
upon him under Section 5(2) of the Act.
(d) The order of Settlement Officer rejecting the revision petition
filed by the appellants on the ground that the application is barred by
limitation, is contrary to law.
(e) The learned Single Judge, while dealing with the Writ Petitions,
failed to consider an important issue that no patta was issued in favour of
the Zamindar, namely A.K.Ranganatha Iyer and therefore there was no need
to challenge the proceedings, dated 31.07.1952. The appellants in all these
24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
Writ Appeals, who are the legal heirs of the original owner by name
Alavattan or Amavasai, are entitled to Ryotwari Patta under the Act.
Though no application was filed by the Ryots to get Ryotwari Patta within
time or the extended time, the Commissioner and Director of Survey and
Settlement is competent to condone the delay and exercise his own suo-
motu power as the Director of Survey and Settlement.
(f) The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, while
setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer, has considered the
eligibility of the appellants to get Ryotwari Patta on merits. The reasons
assigned by the Director of Settlement are not properly appreciated by the
Commissioner of Land Administration or the learned Single Judge while
disposing of the Writ Petitions.
(g) The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Administration has not considered the merits of the claim of the appellants
with reference to the documents filed by them and the Special
25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
Commissioner of Land Administration has failed to give proper reasons to
set aside the findings of the Director of Settlement.
(h) The learned Single Judge failed to consider that the contesting
respondents have not established as to how their predecessor-in-title,
namely A.K.Ranganatha Iyer were entitled to claim Ryotwari Patta under
Section 12 of the Act.
(i) The learned Single Judge has not properly considered the
principles of law.
8.The respective arguments learned counsel for the appellants in
W.A.Nos.844 and 845 of 2011 were endorsed by the other when the matter
was heard earlier. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
in W.A.No.844 of 2011, circulated a letter dated 29.11.2012 and informed
the Court that due to some personal inconvenience, the learned counsel
26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
could not appear for the case on 30.11.2022 and requested that the matter
may be listed after one week.
9. This Court started hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on
either side quite some time back and at the request of the counsels appearing
one after another, the matter was adjourned on few occasions. After hearing
the matter earlier on 28.11.2022, this Court directed the matter to be listed
under the caption "for orders" on the top of the list so that the Court would
dictate the order in the Open Court. However, the learned counsel for the
appellants in WA.No.884/2011 came forward with a lame excuse to get an
adjournment without proper reason or cause. Having spent substantial time
for hearing the matter and completed the hearing of all the counsels, we
find it difficult to adjourn these appeals by one week for no reason. Since
common issues arise for consideration and appellants in WA.No.844/2011
are represented by same counsel before the Writ Court and all the parties
were led by common counsel before the Commissioner/Director of
Settlement and also before the Special Commissioner of Land
27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
Administration, we declined the request and proceed to hear the case on
merits and to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents
submitted that the appellants, who are claiming to be the legal heirs of
Alavatton and Amavasai, have no right to claim title or possession in
respect of the disputed lands, as their predecessors-in-title, have executed
the sale deeds in favour of the wife of A.K.Ranganatha Iyer between 1929
and 1931. He relied upon several documents tracing the title of
A.K.Ranganatha Iyer, who was the then Zamindar of Tirumangalam Zamin
holding a large extent of Ryotwari lands under his personal cultivation apart
from purchasing kudiwaram right from the ryots.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents,
referring to the order passed by the Special Commissioner of Land
Administration and the learned Single Judge in the Writ petitions, submitted
that the present Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed for want of merits
28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
and with exemplary costs, as the appellants have come forward with a false
plea/fake claim, just as any land grabbers would do.
12. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents that the appellants cannot set at naught the binding
final orders of the Assisting Settlement Officer in 1952 granting ryotwari
patta recognising Thiru.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer as person who is entitled to
apply for Ryotwari Patta under Section 12(a)(i) and Section 12(b)(ii) of the
Act.
13. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents also submitted
that the Commissioner and Director of Settlement has no power or
jurisdiction or authority to unsettle the settlement which had taken place in
the year 1952 and he has no Suo Motu power to revise the order of the
Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 5(2). It was pointed out that the
application by writ petitioners is not maintainable under Section 11[a] when
it is alleged that ryotwari patta has been wrongly granted in the year 1952.
29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
14. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official
respondents supported the order of the Special Commissioner of Land
Administration, which is impugned in the Writ Petitions. He relied upon a
few precedents to demonstrate how the Commissioner and Director of
Settlement after several decades, has passed orders contrary to law and
settled principles which has been corrected by the Commissioner of Land
Administration.
15. Before considering the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, and private respondents as well and the learned
Special Government Pleader, it is necessary to state the following facts:
16. With an intention and object to acquire the rights of the land
holders of certain estates and to abolish the Zamindari system and to
introduce the Ryotwari tenure, the Madras (Tamil Nadu) Estates (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948) was
enacted. All the lands which satisfies the definition of 'Estate' was taken
30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
over by the Government subject to the rights of the land holders as well as
Ryots to get the Ryotwari Patta in recognition of their pre-existing right.
17. As per the Act, the entire Estate including communal lands, shall
stand transferred to the Government free of all encumbrances. By virtue of
the Act, the rights of all intermediaries like Zamindar, Inamdar, etc., were
abolished and upon issuing a Notification taking over the land, rights of the
intermediaries gets abrogated subject to their right to claim compensation
and all other reliefs that are provided under the Act.
18. Under the Act, the Settlement Tahsildars were appointed to carry
out the functions and duties assigned to them under the Act. Under Section
4 of the Act, the Government was required to appoint Director of Settlement
to carry out the survey and settlement operations in Estates and introduce
Ryotwari settlement therein. However, the Director of Settlement shall be
subordinate to the Board of Revenue [now Commissioner of Land
Administration].
31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
19. Some of the provisions which are relevant in the present context,
are Sections 5 to 8 and 11 to 15 and 64-C of the Act and they are extracted
as follows:
5.Appointment and functions of Settlement Officer. -
(1) As soon as may be after the passing of this Act, the
Government shall appoint one or more Settlement
Officers to carry out the functions and duties assigned
to them under this Act.
(2) Every Settlement Officer shall be subordinate to the
Director and shall be guided by such lawful
instructions as he may issue from time to time; and the
Director shall also have power 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.
6.Managers of estates. - (1) With effect on and from
the notified date the Government shall appoint one or
more persons to manage the estate.
(2) Every manager shall be subordinate to the District
Collector and shall be guided by such lawful
instructions as he may issue from time to time; and the
32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
District Collector shall also have power to cancel or
revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the
manager.
7.Powers of control of the [Board of Revenue.] - The
Board of Revenue shall have power -
(a) to give effect to the provisions of this Act and in
particular to superintend the taking over of estates and
to make due arrangements for the interim
administration thereof;
(b) to issue instruction for the guidance of the Director,
District Collectors, Settlement Officers and managers
of estates;
(c) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or
proceedings of any Settlement Officer other than those
in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal or of
any managers; and
(d) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or
proceedings of the Director or of any District
Collector, including those passed, done or taken in the
exercise of revisional powers.
33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
8.Constitution of Tribunals for certain purposes. - (1)
The Government shall constitute as many Tribunals as
may be necessary for the purposes of this Act.
[(2) Each Tribunal shall consist of one person only
who shall be a Judicial Officer not below the rank of
District Judge or Additional District Judge.]
(3) Each Tribunal shall have such jurisdiction and over
such estates or parts thereof, as the Government may,
by notification from time to time, determine.
(4) Every Tribunal shall have the same powers as are
vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), when trying
a suit or when hearing an appeal.
11. Lands in which ryot is entitled to ryotwari pattas. -
Every ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from
the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in
respect of-
(a) all ryoti lands which, immediately before the
notified date, were properly included or ought to have
been properly included in his holding and which are
not either lanka lands or lands in respect of which a
landholder or some other person is entitled to a
ryotwari patta under any other provision of this Act;
34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
and
(b) all lanka lands in his occupation immediately
before the notified date, such lands having been in his
occupation or in that of his predecessors-in-title
continuously from the 1st day of July 1939:
Provided that no person who has been admitted into
possession of any land by a landholder on or after the
1st day of July 1945 shall, except where the
Government, after an examination of all the
circumstances otherwise direct, be entitled to a
ryotwari patta in respect of such land.
Explanation. - No lessee of any lanka land and no
person to whom a right to collect the rent of any land
has been leased before the notified date, including an
ijaradar or a farmer of rent, shall be entitled to a
ryotwari patta in respect of such land under this
section.
12. Lands in Zamindari estate in which landholder is
entitled to ryotwari patta. - In the case of a zamindari
estate, the landholder shall with effect on and from the
notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect
of -
35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
(a) all lands (including lanka lands) which,
immediately before the notified date, (i) belonged to
him as private land within the meaning of section 3,
clause (10)(a) of the Estates Land Act, or (ii) stood
recorded as his private land in a record prepared
under the provisions of Chapter XI or Chapter XII of
the said Act, not having been subsequently converted
into ryoti land;
(b) (i) all lands which were properly included or
which ought to have been properly included, in the
holding of a ryot and which have been acquired by the
landholder, by inheritance or succession under a will,
provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands
himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with
his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of
husbandry from the date of such acquisition or the 1st
day of July 1939, whichever is later and has been in
direct and continuous possession of such lands from
such later date;
(ii) all lands which were properly included, or
which ought to have been properly included, in the
holding of a ryot and which have been acquired by the
landholder by purchase, exchange or gift, but not
36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
including purchase at a sale for arrears of rent,
provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands
himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with
his own or hired stock in the ordinary course of
husbandry from the 1st day of July 1945 and has been
in direct and continuous possession of such lands from
that date;
(iii) all lands [not being (i) lanka lands, (ii)
lands of the description specified in section 3, clause
(16), sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Estates Land
Act, or (iii) forest lands] which have been abandoned
or relinquished by a ryot, or which have never been in
the occupation of a ryot, provided that the landholder
has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants
or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock in the
ordinary course of husbandry from the 1st day of July
1939, and has been in direct and continuous possession
of such land from that date.
Explanation. - "Cultivate" in this clause includes the
planting and rearing of topes, gardens and orchards,
but does not include the rearing of topes of
spontaneous growth.
37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
14. Lands in an under-tenure estate in which
landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta. - The grant of
a ryotwari patta to a landholder in respect of lands in
an under-tenure estate shall be regulated in
accordance with the provisions of- .
(a) section 13, if it has been decided under section 10
that such estate was created before the date of the
permanent or temporary settlement of the principal
estate or the 13th day of July 1802, as the case may be;
and
(b) section 12, in other cases.
14A. Ryotwari patta not to be granted in respect of
private tank or oorani. - (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be
granted in respect of any private tank or oorani.
(2) Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private
tank or oorani under this Act before the date of the
publication of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974, in
the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall stand
cancelled, and for purposes of compensation under this
Act, the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be
38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
land in respect of which neither the landholder nor any
other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under this
Act.]
15. Determination of lands in which the landholder is
entitled to ryotwari patta under foregoing provisions. -
(1) The Settlement Officer shall examine the nature and
history of all lands in respect of which the landholder
claims a ryotwari patta under section 12,13 or 14, as
the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands
the claim should be allowed.
[(2) (a) Against a decision of the Settlement Officer
under sub-section (1), the Government may, within one
year from the date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Amendment Act, 1954 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXIV of
1954), or from the date of the decision, whichever is
later/and any person aggrieved by such decision may,
within two months from the date, appeal to the
Tribunal:]
Provided that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow
further time not exceeding six months for the filing of
any such appeal:
39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
Provided further that the Tribunal may, in its
discretion, entertain an appeal by the Government at
any time if it appears to the Tribunal that the decision
of the Settlement Officer was vitiated by fraud or by
mistake of fact.
(b) The decision of the Tribunal on any such appeal
shall be final and not be liable to be questioned in any
Court of Law.
64C. Finality of orders passed under this Act. - (1)
Any order passed by the Government or [other
authority under this Act] in respect of matters to be
determined for the purposes of this Act shall, subject
only to any appeal or revision provided by or under
this Act, be final.
(2) No such order shall be liable to be questioned in
any Court of Law.
20.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the lands in
Koyambedu-Thirumangalam villages is an Estate and these two villages
were taken over under the Act.
40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
21.Koyambedu was an Inam Estate and Thirumangalam was a
Zamindar Estate. Koyambedu Village was taken over by a Notification
dated 01.10.1951 and Thirumangalam Village was notified by the
Government Order, dated 09.12.1950 and taken over on 09.01.1951.
However, the two villages were bridged to form a combined village known
as Koyambedu Village. While the erstwhile Koyambedu Village, was
assigned survey numbers in S.Nos.1 to 206 ; S.Nos.207 to 322 was given to
Thiurmangalam Village.
22. One Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer appears to have acquired the rights
as Zamindar of Thirumangalam Village. It appears that A.K.Ranganatha
Iyer, Zamindar, acquired several hundreds of acres and some of them were
held to be his private lands. He had acquired ryotwari rights from the
persons in enjoyment in respect of vast extent of lands in the name of his
wife and it is seen that the said A.K.Ranganatha Iyer claimed that he was
the real owner, as his wife in whose name the lands were acquired, was just
a name-lender (Benami).
41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
23. Thiru.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer purchased ryotwari right in a few
acres of land from one Amavasai and Alavattan vagairah under a few
documents from 1929 to 1931 in the name of his wife. Even though the
lands were originally held by Tmt.Vedambal, one Amavasai, son of
Alavattan and another person by name Alavattan, had purchased the lands
from Tmt.Vedambal. All the sons of Alavattan, including Amavasai and one
Alavattan along with others sold the properties in favour of
Tmt.Kalpagambal, the wife of Thiru.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer. Since
A.K.Rnganathan was a Zamin of Thirumangalam, he had vast extent of
lands in his holding as private lands and purchased Ryotwari Patta rights
from several other persons who were doing cultivation. The said
A.K.Ranganatha Iyer claimed Ryotwari Patta under Section 12 (a)(i) and
Section12(b)(ii) of T.N. Act 26 of 1948 in respect of his private lands and as
landholder who acquired kudiwaram rights respectively.
24. Thiru.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer submitted before the Assistant
Settlement Officer that he is holding the lands and he is entitled to hold the
42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
lands, as his wife was just a "Benami". It is admitted that his wife died in
1948 when he filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer
for Ryotwari Patta. His children had no objection for granting ryotwari
patta in favour of A.K.Ranganatha Iyer even though patta for the ryotwari
lands were given in their name.
25. It was noticed that the Zamindar Thiru.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer had
granted Patta in the name of his two sons. He applied for Ryotwari Patta in
his capacity as land-holder in respect of his private lands as well as
transferee-in-interest of Kudiwaram right. It was by virtue of several sale
deeds executed by Thiru.Alavattan and Amavasai and their family memebrs,
A.K.Ranganatha Iyer applied Ryotwari Patta under Section 12(b)(ii) of the
Act. There is no dispute that A.K.Ranganatha Iyer was granted Ryotwari
Patta in respect of the vast extent of lands. Though majority of the lands
were recognised as his private land in his holding, for which the land-holder
is entitled to Ryotwari Patta under Section 12(a)(i) of the Act, he claimed
Ryotwari Patta in respect of the lands purchased by him from the Ryots,
43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
under Section 12(b)(ii) of the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer, by his
proceedings dated 31.07.1952, after considering the nature of the claim and
the provisions of the Act, granted Ryotwari Patta under two different
provisions in respect of the lands acquired by him through different source
as indicated above.
26.Nearly after 45 years, one Elumalai and 20 others, through their
Power of Attorney by name R.Chandrasekaran and one other person, by
name Balakrishnan, claimed Ryotwari Patta by making an application.
Surprisingly, it is to be noted that the said individuals have claimed title on
the basis of the documents under which one Amavasai and Alavattan had
purchased the property from Tmt.Vedammal, wife of Thiruvengadam Pillai.
The Assistant Settlement Officer, by order dated 31.07.1998, rejected the
application on several grounds, not only on merits, but also on the ground
that the claim is barred by limitation. The Assistant Settlement Officer
specifically referred to in his order that the documents filed by the
petitioners before him, did not prove that the properties were in the
44
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
possession of the petitioners on the date of the Notification taking over the
village under the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer found that the claim
which was made 45 years after settlement proceedings were concluded,
cannot be given life. A specific observation was made that the claimants are
not eligible to claim Ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of Act.
27. It is to be pointed out that one N.Adhikesavan and Panneerselvam
through their Power of Attorney--P.Balakrishnan filed a civil suit in
O.S.No.5836 of 1998 before the City Civil Court, Chennai and pending the
said civil suit, they also filed an application seeking temporary injunction
restraining M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries, which is one of the contesting
respondent in the present Writ Appeals from interfering with their
possession. After contest, the said interim application was dismissed by
holding that the plaintiff has not produced any document to prove their title
and that the document which was filed as Ex.A-4 (in the nature of Patta)
issued by the Head-quarters of Deputy Tahsildar, Saidapet, dated
45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
09.11.1961 is a fabricated document fraudulently obtained. The said suit
was dismissed subsequently.
28.Further, aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Settlement
Officer, the affected parties filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer
who dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Strangely, the power
of attorney agent of the writ petitions by name Balakrishnan filed a petition
before the Commissioner and Director of Survey Settlement, who allowed
the petition in favour of B.Balakrishnan and directed patta to be transferred
in the name of B.Balakrishnan who is just an agent. As against the order
passed by the Commissioner/Director of Survey and Settlement,
M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries filed a revision petition before the
Commissioner of Land Administration, who set aside the order of Director
of Survey and Settlement. As against the order passed by the Commissioner
of Land Administration, dated 14.05.2001 the aggrieved persons filed the
Writ Petitions before this Court, and the writ petitions were dismissed by
the learned Single Judge.
46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
29.Considering the facts, pleadings and records and the arguments of
the learned counsels appearing on either side, this Court is inclined to deal
with the issues under the relevant headings.
[A]Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
WPMP.No.75/2008 in WP.No.12613/2001 precludes the respondent
from raising the issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition:
30.During the pendency of the writ petition, the 5th respondent in
WP.No.12613/2001 filed WP.MP.No.75/2008 to dismiss the writ petition
on the preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable. The
5th respondent raised an objection as regards maintainability of the writ
petition on the ground that the order of Assistant Settlement Officer in 1952
cannot be challenged by the petitioners in 1996 before the Director of
Survey and Settlement and that the Director of Survey and Settlement has
no power to condone the delay of more than 4 decades. A learned Single
Judge of this Court, who heard the writ petition, by order dated 10.04.2008,
dismissed WP.MP.No.75/2008 on the ground that the writ petitioners have
47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
not availed the alternative remedy available under Section 15[2] of the
Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 and that the application arise under Section 11
of the Act. It is also held by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the
miscellaneous petition that the suo motu power to cancel or revise the
orders of Settlement Officer under Section 5[2] of the Act cannot be
curtailed. Accepting the arguments of the learned Senior counsel appearing
for the writ petitioners, the learned Single Judge held that only when there is
a dispute with regard to grant of patta in respect of ryot lands, authorities
need to decide under Section 15 of the Act and that the request of the writ
petitioners who are claiming patta under Section 11 of Act 26/1948 cannot
be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under
Section 15 of the Act. Since the learned Single Judge has held initially that
writ petition is maintainable, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has erroneously held that
the application filed under Section 11[a] of the Act is not maintainable
merely on the ground of delay.
48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
30.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants are
unsustainable either on facts and on law. First of all, it is not in dispute that
in respect of the subject matter of lands, ryotwari patta had already been
granted in favour of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer, by the Assistant Settlement
Officer in his proceedings dated 31.07.1952. The writ petitioners have
approached the Assistant Settlement Officer after lapse of four decades by
specifically pleading that ryotwari patta issued in favour of
Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer had been wrongly issued.
31.Section 11[a] of the Act deals with ryot lands which ought to have
been included in the holdings of applicants who are seeking ryotwari patta
under Section 11[a] of the Act. In the present case, the landholder himself
purchased the kudiwaram right from Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan Vagaiyara
long back. From the proceedings dated 31.07.1952, the properties were
held to be in the enjoyment of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer. Therefore, patta
was granted in favour of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer under the category of
landholder who had also acquired kudiwaram right. The claim of
49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer before the Assistant Settlement Officer falls under
Section 12[b][ii] of the Act 26/1948. Since the sons of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha
Iyer have recognised their father's right as a person holding kudiwaram and
that patta in their favour was granted only by the landholder himself, this
Court finds no illegality in recognising Mr.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer as a person
entitled to ryotwari patta in terms of Section 12[b][ii] of the Act. This Court
has already seen that the writ petitioners are only claiming under one
Amavasai and Alavattan who have sold their Kudiwaram right in favour of
Mrs.Kalpagammal, wife of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer between 1929 and
1931 under five different Sale Deeds. It is not the case of any of the
claimants that their predecessor-in-interest had retained their kudiwaram
right in respect of any parcels of land or had acquired kudiwaram right from
Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer or his wife after the five Sale Deeds were executed
between 1929 and 1931. Though an attempt was made by writ petitioners
before the Commissioner of Land Administration, the writ petitioners have
not produced any document to support their argument and therefore, the
Commissioner of Land Administration has rejected the contention of the
50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
writ petitioners. Even before this Court, no document showing semblance
of right in favour of appellants is produced.
32.Section 5[2] of the Act 26/1948 refers to the power of a Director to
cancel or revise any orders or proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other
than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. As rightly
pointed out by the Commissioner of Land Administration, the order passed
by the Assistant Settlement Officer in 1952 can be challenged only by way
of an appeal under Section 15 of the Act and the suo motu power as
contemplated under Section 5[2] of the Act is not available to the Director
of Survey and Settlement. The Director of Survey and Settlement in his
order dated 05.07.1999 has admitted this position. Therefore, the views
expressed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition filed by
one of the respondents in the writ petition, is erroneous and without
considering the statutory provisions and the legal implications of orders
passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 1952. Therefore, the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have no merits
51
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
and this Court, sitting in appeal, is not bound by the order of the learned
Single Judge in WMP.No.75/2008 dated 10.04.2008.
[B]Whether the Assistant Settlement Officer granting Ryotwari patta in
favour of predecessors-in-interest of contesting respondents by order
dated 31.07.1952 is without jurisdiction and liable to be cancelled after
four decades?
33.This Court carefully considered the proceedings of the Assistant
Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta in favour of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha
Iyer by treating him as landholder acquiring kudiwaram right from the ryots.
From the evidence recorded in the proceedings of Assistant Settlement
Officer, the writ petitioners who claim to be the legal heirs of Tvl.Amavasai
and Alavattan Vagaiyara had originally conveyed their kudiwaram right in
favour of the wife of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer. Absolutely there is no claim
from anyone of the writ petitioners that the predecessors-in-interest had
retained kudiwaram right in respect of any parcels of land. None of the
52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
legal heirs of Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan have questioned the order of
Settlement Officer by filing an appeal under Section 15 of the Act.
34.Under Section 64[c] of the Act 26/1948 any order passed by the
Government or other authority, under the Act in respect of matters to be
determined for the purpose of the Act, shall, subject only to any appeal or
revision provided by or under the Act, be final. Therefore, Section 64[c] of
the Act creates a bar to challenge the order of authority under the Act in a
collateral proceedings after four decades. When the writ petitioners have
not raised their little finger for more than four decades questioning the order
of Assistant Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta in favour of others,
an attempt is made by land grabbers by using the names of the descendants
of vendors of the wife of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer. This Court is unable to
find proper documents to accept the version of claimants/writ petitioners as
legal heirs of either Tvl.Amavasai or Alavattan or others who have
conveyed their kudiwaram right in favour of wife of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha
Iyer. It is a surprise to note that before the Director of Survey and
53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
Settlement, no petition was filed by any of the legal heirs of vendors of wife
of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer. However, a petition was filed by their Power
of Attorney agent in his individual capacity. Shockingly, the Director of
Survey and Settlement directed issuance of patta in the name of the Power
of Attorney agent of the writ petitioners without assigning proper reasons.
The Director of Survey and Settlement has neither understood the
provisions of the Act nor considered the application with the proper
understanding of common law principles. Every reasoning of the Director
of Survey and Settlement exposes his ignorance of law.
35.This Court had occasion to consider the question of limitation for
claiming ryotwari patta. G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes and Religious
Endowments Department dated 29.06.1987 empowers the Settlement
Officer to entertain the revision petition if it is filed within 30 days after the
extended period. The Assistant Settlement Officer has no power to entertain
an application filed under Section 11[a] of the Act beyond the extended
period. In this case, the revision petition is filed only in the year 1996 and
54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
hence, the Assistant Settlement Officer has not only rejected the revision
petition on merits but also on the ground that such revision petition cannot
be entertained after 40 years of the order granting ryotwari patta under
Section 12 of the Act in favour of landholder. The appeal was rightly
dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer as the same was not within
the time prescribed for filing an appeal or revision. However, the Director
of Survey and Settlement observed that the Settlement Officer is empowered
to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days as per the amended rules
in terms of G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987. This itself is wrong.
36.This Court in several decisions has considered the scope of
G.O.ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987. The cut off date for applying patta was
not extended beyond 20.08.1987. The limitation cannot be extended
beyond the period of 30 days from the date of publication of the
Government Order. Considering this aspect, a Division Bench of this Court
vide judgment dated 19.08.2021 in WA.No.739/2019 in the case of
B.Udhayan and Others Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of
55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 and Others, has held as
follows:-
5.Even though there is no reasoning or finding
given by the learned Single Judge, it is evident from
G.O.Ms.No.714, dated 29.06.1987 under Section 11[a]
of the Act, the cut off date for applying rytowari patta
was fixed as 20.08.1987. Once the cut-off date has
been fixed, the appellants have got no right to apply for
Ryotwari Patta that too on 04.12.1995 almost after a
decade. In the name of condone delay, a petition has
been filed and the 2nd respondent is said to have
entertained the application regarding which the 2nd
respondent lacks power. The appellants has got
neither locus standi to file application for grant of
ryotwari patta beyond 20.08.1987 not the authorities
have power or jurisdiction to receive the application
and grant Ryotwari patta beyond G.O.Ms.No.714,
dated 29.06.1987.
37.It is stated before this Court by the official respondents that the
time prescribed for independent application was not extended and therefore,
56
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
the application before the Assistant Settlement Officer is time barred.
Further, the appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer was not filed
within the period of limitation prescribed in the statute. Nevertheless, the
Director of Survey and Settlement proceeded to entertain an application
which was filed before him in the year 1996. After the order of Settlement
Officer dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, the Director of
Survey and Settlement cancelled the ryotwari patta granted in favour of
landholder in 1952. The officer who passed the order dated 05.07.1999 is
either incompetent or corrupt to pass such an order ignoring the provisions
of the Act and without considering the admitted facts and the records. The
Director of Survey and Settlement entertained several doubts without any
document or evidence let in before him to justify a claim after a period of
four and half decades.
[C] Whether the Director of Survey and Settlement has suo motu power
to revise the order of Settlement Officer in view of Section 5[2] of Act
26 of 1948:-
57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
38.This Court has already observed that Section 5[2] of the Act only
confers suo motu power to the Director to cancel or revise any of the orders,
acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer other than in respect of which
an appeal lies to the Tribunal. In the present case, it is admitted that the
Assistant Settlement Officer has passed the order on 31.07.1952, granting
ryotwari patta in favour of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer under Sections 12[a][i]
and 12[b][ii] of the Act. Since the character of properties held by
Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer was different, the Assistant Settlement Officer has
recognised the rights of a landholder to get ryotwari patta for his private
lands under Section 12[a][i] and as landholder purchasing kudiwaram right
from the ryots to get patta under Section 12[b][ii] of the Act. Anyone
aggrieved by the order granting ryotwari patta in favour of landholder under
Section 12 of the Act can file appeal before the Tribunal within two months
from the date of order. Section 15 provides for allowing further time
exceeding six months for filing any appeal in terms of Section 15[2][a] of
the Act. As per Section 15[2][b], the decision of the Tribunal on any appeal
shall be final and not liable to be questioned in any Court of law. In the
58
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
present case, no appeal is filed. Therefore, by virtue of Section 64[c] of the
Act, the order passed by the authority under the Act is final. Therefore, the
order of the Director of Survey and Settlement is without jurisdiction and
wholly illegal as rightly held by the Commissioner of Land Administration
by the subsequent order dated 14.05.2001.
[D]Whether the reasons assigned by the Director of Survey and
Settlement can be accepted for setting aside the order granting ryotwari
patta after 45 years:-
39.As it was rightly pointed out by the Commissioner of Land
Administration, the Director of Survey and Settlement in his order dated
05.07.1999, has presumed so many things without specific pleadings or
documents. From the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition or in the petitions before the Director of Survey and Settlement, this
Court is unable to gather a specific case challenging the order of Assistant
Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta in favour of Mr.A.K.Ranganatha
Iyer in the year 1952. The Director of Survey and Settlement has
59
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
erroneously entertained the application as one under 11[a] of the Act
without any supporting documents or revenue records. When the prayer of
the writ petitioners before the Director of Survey and Settlement is to
cancel ryotwari patta already granted in favour of Mr.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer,
the application cannot be considered as one under Section 11[a] of the Act.
The Assistant Settlement Officer while granting patta in favour of
Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer has referred to several facts supported by
documents. The five Sale Deeds produced before this Court and relied upon
by the respondents would show that Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan along with
their family members have sold their kudiwaram right in favour of
Tmt.Kalpagammal, wife of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer. The genuineness and
validity of the Sale Deeds are not in issue. In such circumstances, it is
expected from the Director of Survey and Settlement to scrutinse the
documents and consider how the writ petitioners who claim to be the legal
heirs of Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan could lay a claim in respect of the
properties conveyed by their predecessors-in-interest under several Sale
Deeds. No effort was taken by the Director of Survey and Settlement to
60
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
consider whether the legal heirs of Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan had any
other land in their possession apart from what was conveyed by their
predecessors-in-title between 1929 and 1931. Instead, the Director of
Survey and Settlement examined the rights of M/s.Krishna Tiles Potteries
[Madras] Private Limited and the subsequent transferees who are entitled to
step into the shoes of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer who got ryotwari patta under
Section 12 of the Act 26/1948. When nobody questioned the entitlement of
Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer by way of appeal and it was just stated that patta
was wrongly given in 1952 the assumption of the Director of Survey and
Settlement that no patta was granted in respect of the lands for which patta
is now claimed by Mr.B.Balakrishnan as Power of Attorney Agent of legal
heirs of Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan is perverse. When no document
questioning right, title, possession, enjoyment and character of land is filed
by the writ petitioners before the Director of Survey and Settlement, the
Director of Survey and Settlement has made a few observations erroneously
to the effect that there are serious lapses during settlement under Act 26 of
1948. It is unfortunate to notice that the Director of Survey and Settlement
61
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
who granted patta in favour of Power of Attorney holder without assigning
reasons, has questioned the regularity of the order of Assistant Settlement
Officer who has assigned reasons for granting ryotwari patta during
settlement in 1952.
40.Some of the irregularities pointed out by the Director of Survey
and Settlement are irrelevant when we consider the same in the light of
admitted facts. Referring to a Settlement Deed vide document
No.1009/1944, it is observed by the Director of Survey and Settlement that
patta cannot be given to Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer when there was a
Settlement Deed in 1944. Since the property has been settled in favour of
the other legal heirs of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer, it is observed that the
properties have been included in the holding of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer
contrary to law. It is seen that the sons of Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer have
admitted before the Assistant Settlement Officer that it is their father who
had acquired kudiwaram right. The Court cannot suspect the events
recorded in 1952 to favour some third parties who are not claiming under
62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
parties to the proceedings before Assistant Settlement Officer in 1952. The
writ petitioners have no locus standi to question the validity of transactions
between Sri.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer and his sons.
41.From the reading of every paragraph of the order, this Court gets
only an impression that the findings of the Director of Survey and
Settlement are perverse and every conclusion is based on presumptions and
conjectures without reference to any documents which are admitted. It is
seen that the Director of Survey and Settlement has doubted every sentence
that is found in the order of Assistant Settlement Officer dated 31.07.1952,
but did not bother to consider lack of pleadings and materials to support the
case of writ petitioners.
[E] Whether the order of the Commissioner of Land Administration
impugned in the writ petitions, is valid?
42.The Commissioner of Land Administration in his order impugned,
has referred to every finding of the Director of Survey and Settlement and
63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
found that the findings are not only perverse but also without jurisdiction.
This Court finds not even a scrap of paper in the big typed set filed by the
appellants to support their case. Every document relied upon by the Director
of Survey and Settlement is only to misdirect himself. The Commissioner
of Land Administration has found that the predecessors-in-interest of the
appellants were not in possession of the suit lands as on the date of
settlement proceedings and that the predecessors-in-interest of the
appellants who have sold their kudiwaram rights long back cannot be
considered as eligible to make a rival claim for grant of ryotwari patta under
Act 26 of 1948.
43.The writ petitioners have come forward with a stale claim after
four and half decades. Even assuming that there are some irregularities
during settlement, the order passed by the statutory authorities cannot be
ignored. The writ petitioners who have failed to challenge the order of
Assistant Settlement Officer in his proceedings dated 31.07.1952 cannot
make an independent claim ignoring the ryotwari patta granted in favour of
64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
the rightful landholder. Even though some of the legal heirs of
Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan filed civil suits, it is brought to the notice of
this Court by the contesting respondents that several suits filed by them
were dismissed. Though it is true that a Civil Court is competent to decide
the question of title irrespective of the order passed by the authorities under
Act 26 of 1948, the Act does not permit the Government or any other officer
to re-write the order of Assistant Settlement Officer which had become
final. As indicated by this Court earlier, the writ petitioners appear to have
joined hands with land grabbers. In the absence of any document to support
their claim, this Court has bona fide reason to believe that the writ petitions
are not only vexatious litigations but litigations to make the property
litiguous for the real owners to enjoy with an oblique motive.
44.Hence, the above Writ Appeals are dismissed with an exemplary
cost by directing the appellants to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only] in each Writ appeal to THE LEGAL
SERVICES AUTHORITY WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS
65
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER.
C.M.P.No.20540 of 2022 and M.P.2 of 2011 are closed, in view of the
dismissal of the present Writ Appeals as above.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [N.M., J.]
30.11.2022
cs/AP
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
To
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Commissioner and Director of
Survey and Settlement,
Chennai-600 005.
3.The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur.
4.The Assistant Settlement Officer,
Thiruvannamalai.
66
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND N.MALA, J., cs/AP W.A.Nos.844, 845 and 1314 of 2011 30.11.2022 67 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis