Madras High Court
The Administrator General And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 December, 2023
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
W.P.No.16776 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.No.16776 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.34964, 34968, 32975 and 34959 of 2023
The Administrator General and
Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Additional Deputy Administrator General
and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu
High Court, Campus, Chennai – 600 104. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Special Commissioner,
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Cheapuk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Erode Collectorate Building
Erode District – 638 011.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms,
Erode – 638 001. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order
passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 18.02.1984, Revenue
Department and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.V.Chandru
For Respondents : Mr.R.Ramanlal, Addl. Advocate General, assisted
by Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Addl.G.P.
W.M.P.No.32975 of 2023 in W.P.No.16776 of 2023:
1. M.Vetrivel
2. T.Ebineser
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/32
W.P.No.16776 of 2022
3. R.Ganesan
4. C.K.Selvaraj
5. A.K.Udayakumar
.. Petitioners in W.M.P.No.32975 of 2023 in W.P.No.16776 of 2023
Vs.
1. The Administrator General and
Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Additional Deputy Administrator General
and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu
High Court, Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
2.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Special Commissioner,
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Cheapuk, Chennai – 600 005.
4.The District Collector,
Erode Collectorate Building
Erode District.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms,
Erode.
.. Respondents in W.M.P.No.32975 of 2023 in W.P.No.16776 of 2023
W.M.P.No.32975 of 2023 filed to implead the petitioners in the petition
as respondents 5 to 9 in the Writ Petition.
For petitioner in W.M.P.No.32975 of 2023: Mr.R.Govindaraj
For respondents in W.M.P.No.32975 of 2023:
Mr.R.Ramanlal, Addl.Advocate General
assisted by Mr.T.Arunkumar, Addl.G.P.
for RR-2 to 5
Mr.E.V.Chandru for R-1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/32
W.P.No.16776 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1 st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.232 dated 18.02.1984 Revenue Department and quash the same.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
● Originally the subject properties belongs to one Palaniappa Chettiar and his wife Chellammal @ Rangammal in Sathyamangalam Taluk, Gobichettipalayam, Nambiyur Village, Erode Disrict. Both of them jointly executed a Will dated 27.09.1968, which enumerated various charities to be carried out from the income adumbrated from the properties.
● A three member committee was constituted for carrying out the charitable objectives mentioned under the Will. Mr.Palaniappa Chettiar died on 05.10.1969 and his wife Chellammal @ Rangammal died on 24.12.1980. Thus, the Will came into existence thereupon, and the persons claiming to be representatives of Hindu Community in general, filed a suit in O.S.No.76 of 1981 on the file fo the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, for framing of scheme to manage the Trust properties and contesting defendants disputed the due execution of joint Will and claimed right upon the suit properties.
● The Court below came to the conclusion that the Trust is not framed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 under the Will dated 27.09.1968 and the suit was dismissed, against which, the aggrieved parties filed appeals in A.S.No.851 of 1989 and A.S.No.606 of 1989 before this Court. Both the appeals were disposed by holding that the Will dated 27.09.1968 is a mutual and a joint Will. Further, it was held that after the death of Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal have no right to alienate the property and all alienations made thereon were declared as null and void. Consequently, this Court directed the District Munisf Court, Gobichettipalayam, having jurisdiction over the matter, permitted to discharge the receiver that it would be open to receive the amounts.
● This Court further held that it would be open to the Judge to consider the entrustment of Administration and Management of the Trust to AG & OT of this Court, as he is functioning under the guidelines of the Madras High Court.
● Aggrieved by the judgment of this Court, Civil Appeal Nos.5924, 6469 of 2005, etc., were filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court, vide judgment dated 09.03.2017, had partly allowed the appeals and held that the Testatrix has absolute right to deal with the properties mentioned in the Will and alienation made by her during her lifetime is saved by the Will. The sale deeds in favour of the appellant therein as null and void were set aside. Further, the sale deeds mentioned in para 68 of the judgment are deleted from the description of the property in the plaint. Consequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 directed the Judicial Officer having jurisdiction over the case to frame scheme for the Trust within stipulated time.
● Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court , the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, vide order dated 28.04.2018 made in I.A.No.413 of 2017 framed scheme for the management of the Trust and constituted a Board consisting of Commissioner, HR & CE, Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam and entrusted the Management of Trust properties to the Administrator General and Official Trustee (writ petitioner herein). Hence, trust properties vested with the AG & OT in tune with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. As per the order dated 02.02.1989 in O.S.No.76 of 1981 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Gobichettipalayam, regarding the above said Trust agricultural land ad-measuring an extent 96.42 Acres of lands, vested with the AG & OT. Subsequent to it, the respondents had acquired the said lands under the Land Ceiling Act, 1961, which is not valid under law. The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (herein after referred as Act 58 of 1961) was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 02.05.1962.
4. As per the said Act, a ceiling of 30 standard acres of agriculture land was fixed as the maximum holding under sub-Clause (1) of Section 18 of the said Act and surplus land had to be notified as required for public purpose https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 and on such publication and in view of Section 18 (3) of the Act, the land specified in the Notification shall be deemed to have been acquired for public purpose and shall vest in the Government free from any encumbrances.
5. The Acquisitioning Authorities have issued notice under Section 10 (5) and Section 18 of the Act to one Mr.G.K.Perumal, who is no way connected with the said properties. The State Government published draft Notification under Section 18 (1) of the Act on 18.02.1984, whereas Rangammal (Land Owner) died on 24.12.1980 itself. The notice under Sections 10 (5), 11 and 12 of the Act was not served on the land owner and any failure to serve the notice would be violation of mandatory provisions of the Act as per the decision in the case of Thirumathi Mnaoranjitham Vs. The Authorised Officer, reported in (1984) 2 MLJ 474.
6. The State Government has acquired land by publishing draft Notification under Sections 10 (5) and 18 of the Act issued on 18.02.1984. The prolonged litigation pertains to management of Trust properties and were concluded by the judgment and by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 09.03.2017, thereupon the Competent Civil Court has framed scheme decree for management of Trust properties by the AG & OT and others in deference to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. The civil litigation emanated for management of Trust properties had taken 40 years. Even though there is inordinate delay and latches standing in the way https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 of challenging the Notification of acquisition of land by the Government in the year 1984.
7. The Courts have repeatedly held that an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition challenging the Notification of acquisition of land is fatal and would affect the maintainability of the writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. Lakshmi (1996) 6 SCC 445 held that “when the Award was passed and possession were taken, the Court should not have exercised it power to quash the Award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950”. Immediately soon after, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed order and in civil appeals dated 07.03.2017. The Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu had issued notice dated 14.11.2018 to the District Collector, Erode to hand over all the lands of the trust properties of Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal Charities taken by Land Reforms at the earliest in order to proceed with the charitable activities as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. The respondents have not till now quashed the acquisition procedings as per G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 18.02.1984 with regard to the Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal Trust properties. Acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Tamil Nadu Government with regard to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 above mentioned properties under Act 58 of 1961 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970. Notification under Section 18 (1) of the Act, was issued to declare the said properties as surplus land of Thirumathi Rangammal under publication dated 18.12.1984 in G.O.Ms.No.232 (Revenue Department). Subsequently, the same has been published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.90 dated 25.02.1984. The said properties belong to the Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal Charities (Trust Property), and therefore, the acquisition proceedings under the Land Ceiling Act is not valid under Section 20 (iv) which exempts the land of any Public Charitable or Religious Trust (including “ Wakf ”) and required and used for any public charity or religious purpose, and therefore, the above said Notifications are liable to be set aside. The respondents may be directed to hand over the properties to the writ petitioner.
9. The averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent are that the powers of “Authorised Officer” under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 as amended and the powers of “Assigning Authority” under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, was conferred on all the Sub- Collectors/Revenue Divisional Officers in the State as per the notification published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 04.03.2015 and 05.03.2015 as the said lands alienate in the Revenue Jurisdiction of Gobichettipalayam Revenue Division. The said Revenue Divisional Officer of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 Gobichettipalayam is the Authorised Officer in this case. The writ petition is not maintainable on account of delay and latches in challenging G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 18.02.1984. The said G.O was promulgated on 18.02.1984 and the same is challenged only now and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. The above said GO was passed after following all the procedures as contemplated under the said Act and the Rules, which obtained finality and it is not open to challenge it now. The writ petitioner does not have any locus- standi in the present writ petition. As per the provisions of the said Act, the possession was taken and the property was distributed for beneficiaries and hence, at this stage, the writ petition cannot be maintained. The lands which are declared as surplus lands, beneficiaries are identified and the lands are assigned and they are in possession and enjoyment of the land owner. The lands were assigned as per the rules contained in Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965. The beneficiaries are in possession and enjoyment and having title for nearly 30 years and without adding the beneficiaries as parties to this writ petition, the writ petition is not maintainable.
11. All the proceedings in this case would not be valid and binding the respondent for the reason that the respondents had exercised their sovereign function given under the Act and declared the properties as surplus land and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 the Government became the owner of the land under Section 20 of the Act. There is no reference to Will dated 20.07.1965 executed by Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal and the above said land owners are aware of the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1961. The Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal participated in the enquiry in respect of the notice issued under the said Act and notices were served on them and as per the Will, they cannot convey the lands which are declared as surplus land under the said Act. Any act done in contravention of the Act is null and void and not binding on the 2nd Respondent. As per Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act, it is incumbent on a person who is holding excess land more than the reforms area, is deemed to inform the concerned authority about their land hold. In this case, notices were issued to the land owners and various proceedings under the Act were issued and hence the writ petitioner does not have any locus-standi, to seek for quashing of the impugned G.O. As per the Act, under Section 3 (34), a person inclusive of any private Trust or public Trust and hence even this Trust holds any land more than any reforms area as defined under Section 5 of the Land Reforms Act, does not have any right to seek for quashing of the G.O. The G.O. is binding on the writ petitioner, because the land owner Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal were aware of the proceedings. As per the records available, the name is not Chinnammal, it is Chinnammal @ Rangammal. The agricultural land ad-measuring an extent of 96.42 Acres of land, vests with the AG and OT. The proceedings were commenced against the original land owners by issuing the notice in Form 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 on 14.02.1974 and hence, the claim of the AG & OT is not correct. The AG and OT has stepped into the shoes of the original land owners and the holding of the land owners is held in surplus under the said Act, and the question of vesting with The Administrator regarding the lands which are declared as surplus, is not correct. The entire land is under the purview of the Land Reforms Act, and the notices were served on Rangammal who also participated in the proceedings and after initiation of the proceedings and only at the last stage, the said Rangammal and he also got a Will in his favour. This respondent is not concerned about the controversy that has been stated about Mr.G.K.Perumal. Since the lands in excess of the reforms area are fixed under Section 5 and any holding after 15.02.1970, whether it is of individual or Trust, the land which is being held, is in excess of the reforms area and is deemed to have been vested with the Government and hence the claim of the writ petitioner is not correct.
12. The land owner herself sent a letter which was received in the office of the “Authorised Officer” of the Land Reforms, Erode-3 on 31.07.1974 seeking exemption of Southern land in Kalingiyam Village, Nathipalayam Village, Nambiyur Village, Lakampatti Village and Veerapandi Village. On the basis of the request of the land owner alone, issuing of notice under Section 10 (5) arose. The order under Section 10 (5) was issued on 23.04.1974 and at that time, Rangammal was alive and so the notice under Section 10 (5) was issued to Mr.G.K.Perumal, which is not correct. Before effecting GO, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 which is the culmination of the declaration of the land as surplus, notices were issued under Section 18(1) at that time, and the 2nd respondent does not know the veracity of the claim of G.K.Perumal and notices were also issued to him. The Government Notification under Section 18 (1) in the name of Mr.G.K.Perumal will not vitiate the entire proceedings, because upto Section 18, Mrs.Rangammal participated and all her objections were considered and over-ruled. The notice under Section 18 is only a formality for Gazette publication and so the claim of the petitioner is not correct. Since the right of the land owner is declared before the death i.e., on 24.12.1980, the issuance of final notices under Section 18 is only a formality required under the Act, and it will not alter the right already decided and hence the claim of the writ petitioner cannot be sustained. The 2nd respondent is not aware of the credentials of Mr.G.K.Perumal.
13. Reference to Section 10(2) of the Act cannot be taken, because the reference under Section 10 was made at the instance of the land owner as narrated earlier and there is no lacuna in following the provisions of Section 10 (2). The orders were passed under Section 10 (5) on 23.04.1977 and hence the claim of the petitioner is not correct. The Will did not come into force on the death of Rangammal. Ms.Rangammal and she brought the notice of the same to the 2nd respondent about the existence of the Will. The existence of the Will will not take away any of the power vested with the respondents under the Land Reforms Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.12/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022
14. The Will will not convey any title to anyone including the writ petitioner of the land, which was held in excess of the reforms limit as prescribed under Section 5 of the Land Reforms Act. The entire proceedings under the Act were initiated against a dead person, which is absolutely false, apart from that, being vague and contrary to the records. The writ petitioner ought to have verified the records being a responsible official before venturing into making allegations against the 2nd respondent. The writ petitioner cannot contrary to the Land Reforms Act and making allegations against the respondent. The surplus land was declared and identified and subsequently the beneficiaries were identified and the beneficiaries were allotted with Patta also given to them and they are in possession and enjoyment of the properties for more than 30 years.
15. It is not open for the writ petitioner to state about the compensation paid at this point of time. Even at the time of admission of the writ petition itself, there was a litigation, which commenced by filing of O.S.No.76 of 1991 and the same has ended only on 09.03.2017 after the Hon'ble Apex Court declared the rights of the parties. After the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam further framed a scheme on 28.04.2018. After the death of Ms.Rangammal on 27.11.1980, regarding payment of compensation, proceedings were initiated as per the Act. Since nobody claimed compensation, the compensation amount was not distributed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 to anyone. Since the land owned is admitted by the petitioner, it does not have any legal heirs and the scheme of the Trustees only was on 28.04.2018. The question of paying the compensation to the Trustee, will not arise at all. The writ petitioner claims that in view of the prolonged litigation of over 40 years, he could not challenge G.O.Ms.No.232 (Revenue) dated 18.12.1984 and it cannot be against the 2nd respondent for the reason that the entire proceedings commenced even during the lifetime of the land owners and the entire proceedings ended before the lifetime of the land owner Ms.Rangammal and G.O. came to be passed only on 18.02.1984. The land was declared as surplus land. As per the Land Reforms Rules, 1965, the surplus lands were distributed to various beneficiaries and they were in enjoyment of the lands and hence filing of the writ petition is fatal to the writ petitioner and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. The averment that the properties belonged to Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal Charity, is absolutely false. Such claim may be in contravention of the Land Reforms Act. The Trust, whether it is private land or public, cannot hold any land in exercise of the land reforms that has been fixed under Section 5 of the Act. In view of Section 5, the writ petitioner cannot claim that the Trust is the owner of the land and as per Section 3(34), a person is inclusive of a private or public trust. As per Section 20(2), which were held in violation of the Land Reforms Act, is deemed to have been transferred to the Government and hence, this writ petitioner is estopped from https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 challenging the order impugned. The writ petitioner has not sought for any permission under Section 37(B) of the Act and permission under Section 37 (B) also cannot be given at this point of time, as the beneficiaries are in possession and enjoyment of the land.
17. The right to hold the property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India is not at all affected and reserves the right under the Land Reforms Act that was challenged and the validity and sanctity of the Act was upheld in decision reported in 1971 (2) SCC 893 (Jagannath Vs. Authorised Officer and others etc.) and the Act was placed under Schedule IX of the Constitution of India, Entry No.46 and hence the decision relied on by the petitioner reported in 2007 (10) SCC 448 (Lachhman Dass Vs. Jagat Ram and others) is not applicable to the cases on hand.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner/AG & OT submitted that the acquired land measuring an extent of 96.42 acres of lands vested with the A.G. & O.T. Subsequently, the respondents have acquired the said land under the Land Ceiling Act, of 1961, which is not valid as per law. He further submitted that Palaniappa Chettiar and his wife Chellammal @ Rangammal possessed the properties of more than 96.47 ares including 29000 houses in Sathyamangalam Taluk, Gobichettipalayam, Nambiyur Village, Erode District. Both the said Palaniappa Chettiar and his wife jointly executed a Will for forming a Trust for carrying out the charitable objectives and Mr.Palaniappa https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.15/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 Chettiar died on 05.10.1969 and his wife Rangammal died on 24.12.1980. He further submitted that the person claiming to be representative of Hindu community (General) have instituted a suit in O.S.No.76 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam for framing of scheme to manage the Trust property. The Court below came to the conclusion that the Trust is not framed under the Will and the Will is dated 27.09.1968 and the suit was dismissed and as against the judgment of the Court below, the First Appeals in A.S.Nos.1851 of 1989 and 606 of 1989 were filed before this Court. Subsequently, both the appeals were disposed of by stating that the Will dated 27.09.1968 is a mutual and joint Will. It is further held that after the death of Palaniappa Chettiar, Rangammal has no right to alienate the property and all alienations made therein were declared as null and void. Aggrieved by the said judgment of this Court, the aggrieved party filed Civil Appeals in Civil Appeal Nos.5924 and 6469 of 2005 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, by judgment dated 09.03.2017, had partly allowed the appeals by holding that Rangammal, the testatrix has absolute right to deal with the properties mentioned in the Will and the alienations made by her during her life-time are re-conveyed by the Will and the judgment of this Court to that extent was that the sale in favour of the appellant herein as null and void, was set aside. Further, the sale deeds mentioned in paragraph 68 of the judgment are deleted from the description of the property in the plaint. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the Judicial Officer having jurisdiction over the case to frame a Scheme for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.16/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 Trust within the stipulated time. The order passed by the first respondent with regard to Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act in G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 18.02.1984 with regard to the petitioner's land, is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and void and without jurisdiction. Further, he would submit that the respondents failed to consider that under the Land Ceiling Act, Section 20(iv), the said properties are exempted from the land acquisition, since the said properties are Trust properties. The land acquisition proceedings are initiated against a dead person, namely Rangammal and the acquisition proceedings are not valid in the eye of law.
19. Learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the said Rangammal, wife of Palanisami Chettiar, Gobichettipalayam, as on 15.02.1970, held an extent of 88.26 ordinary acres of land equivalent to 44.39 standard acres of land, as ascertained from the agricultural income tax account. She did not file Returns in Form-2 for the lands held by her on 15.02.1970 and hence, the field staff was asked to investigate the extent of land held by her as on 15.02.1970 and the field staff of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode, had reiterated that the land owner owns the land of an extent of 95.39 ordinary acres equivalent to 37.101 standard acres in Malayadipudur, Kugalur, Lakkampatti, Siruvalur, Nathipalaam, Veerapandi, Kolappalur and Nambiyur villages of the Gobichettipalayam Taluk and the land owner did not appear for enquiry. The notice dated 14.02.1974 in Form-4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.17/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 of the Land Reforms Act, was issued to the land owner for filing of objections, if any to the holdings returned by the field staff, on or before 26.02.1974 and the land owner has acknowledged the receipt of Form-4 notice on 20.02.1974. She had requested time to file her objections and accordingly, time was also granted by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode. Further, the notices sent were served for appearance on 14.02.1974, 07.03.1974, 16.03.1974 and also on 19.03.1974 through RPAD. But she did not appear for the enquiry and she has not filed any objections to Form-4 notice and it has to be held that she has accepted the extent furnished by the field staff and that there is no violation. Hence, under Section 9(2) of the Land Reforms Act, the lands described below had been published as total holding of agricultural lands owned by the above land owner in the proceedings No.89/MRI/Gobi, dated 18.04.1974 or the Authorised Officer of the Land Reforms, Erode :-
Sl. Name of the Survey Extent in Ordinary Standard No. Village Number acres acres Acres 1 Malayadipudur 289B 0.63 4.410 289A 12.60 13.23 288 6.39 3.098 284 6.00 12.39 2 Kugalur 104/2 3.71 10.51 6.006 103 6.80 103 3.40 3.40 1.333 3 Lakkampatti 105/1 2.15 107/B 1.86 10.79 6.166 99/1 3.44 101 3.34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.18/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 Sl. Name of the Survey Extent in Ordinary Standard No. Village Number acres acres Acres 84/B 1.36 84/A 1.20 2.56 0.853 4 Siruvalur 106/3 6.01 166 5.85 53/B 1.67 13.53 3.382 5 Nathipalayam 55, 65, 7.38 70,71 6 Veerapandi 55, 56,68, 67 7.58 14.96 8.548 69, 70, 71 7 Kolappalur 77,78 8.89 8 Nambiyur 292, 293, 299, 298, 5.13 14.02 3.505 304 Grand Total 95.39 37.101 Acres Acres
20. Later on fresh enquiry process, the following lands owned by the above land owner had been declared and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.48-C, dated 17.12.1980 as surplus land:
Sl. Name of the Village Survey Number Extent in
No. ordinary acres
1 Malayadipudur 289B 0.63
289H 11.33
288 5.76
284 6.00
2 Lakkampatti 103 3.40
105/1 2.15
84B 1.36
3 Siruvalur 53/B 1.67
4 Veerapani 55,56,58,67,69,72, 7.30
71
5 Nambiyur 292,293,299,298,3 5.13
04
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.19/32
W.P.No.16776 of 2022
Sl. Name of the Village Survey Number Extent in
No. ordinary acres
6 Kalingiyam 103 6.80
104/2 3.15
Ordinary Acres 54.68
Standard Acres 21.399
21. After adopting due procedures, following lands were declared as surplus and again amendment of final statement under Section 12 has been made and Notification was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.7-C, dated 22.02.1984 as per G.O.Ms.No.232, Revenue Department, dated 18.02.1984:-
Sl. Name of the village Old Survey New Survey Extent in No. Number Number ordinary acres 1 Malayadipudur 289B 232/2 0.63 289H 232/2 11.33 288 5.76 284 6.00 2 Lakkampatti 103 3.40 105/1 2.15 84/B 1.36 3 Siruvalur 53/B 72 1.67 84/A 1.20 106/3 6.01 166/2 2.23 4 Veerapandi 55 56/C1B 0.79 56 56/A2 2.43 58 56/B1A 0.98 67 68/1A 1.00 69 69/A1 0.34 72 69/A3 0.22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.20/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 Sl. Name of the village Old Survey New Survey Extent in No. Number Number ordinary acres 71 67/A 1.54 5 Nambiyur 297 500/22 0.35 298A 500/26 0.35 297 504/11 0.28 297 504/7 0.23 293 533/3 0.94 293 533/6 0.25 304 537/3 1.14 292 534/1 1.10 298A 499 299A 499 0.49 299B 499 -------------------
6 Kolappalur 77 230/4 8.69
-------------------
Ordinary acres 64.72
Standard acres -------------------
21.310
22. After that, as per the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, the surplus lands have been distributed to various eligible landless agricultural persons who were after adhering to the necessary procedures. Further, he would submit that Sri Rangammal who is the wife of Palaniappa Chettiar held lands of an extent of 95.39 ordinary acres equivalent to 37.101 standard acres as on 15.02.1970, as the lands held by her were in excess of the reforms area, but the draft statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was passed and a copy of the same was also served on the land owner on 21.06.1974 and the land owner filed her objections only on 31.07.1974. As the land owner preferred her objection petition after expiry https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.21/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 of the statutory period of 30 days, it was not considered The land owner preferred an appeal before the Land Tribunal, Erode and the Land Tribunal remanded the matter back for fresh disposal and after considering the objections of the land owner. Accordingly, several notices dated 14.02.1974, 19.03.1974, 25.04.1974, 09.08.1974, 29.08.1974,13.06.1974, 26.11.1974 and 27.12.1974, were issued to the land owner, but she did not avail opportunity to appear for the enquiry. The notice was served on her on 11.07.1974, and as such, the final statement under Section 12 of the Act was prepared and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 17.12.1980. The land owner died only on 24.12.1980 and hence, the final statement could not be served on the land owner.
23. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that one G.K.Perumal Mudaliar of Gobichettipalayam and his wife Tmt.Rangammal inherited the property of the deceased land owner as per the Will dated 27.11.1980 and they preferred the Review Petition before the Land Commissioner, stating that no opportunity of hearing was given to the land owner to put forth the representation and no order under Section 10(5) of the Act was passed and they have been deprived of an opportunity to file objections before the Land Tribunal, Erode against Section 10(5) order and the same is not correct. The order was passed on 23.04.1974 during the life-
time of the land owner. He further submitted that the revision petition was filed by Thiru.G.K.Perumal and his wife Ramayee Ammal. The Land https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.22/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 Commissioner, Chennai has passed order in the proceedings in reference No.F2 (S.95/81)(L.Ref), dated 12.11.1981. He further submitted that an extent of 7.30 acres of land comprising in Survey No.1, Veerapandi Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk of erstwhile Periyar District and now Erode District, has been declared as surplus land from the agricultural holding of Tmt.Rangammal under the Tamil Nadu Land Requirements (Amendment) Act 17 of 1970. In the Notification under Section 18(1) published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 12.02.1984, as approved in G.O.Ms.No.232, Revenue Department, dated 18.02.1984:
Sl.No. Land R.S.No. Extent in
Acres
1 55/C1B 0.79
2 56/A2 2.43
3 56/B1A 0.98
4 68/1A 1.00
5 69/A1 0.34
6 69/A3 0.22
7 67/A 1.54
Total 7.30
24. He further submitted that the notice in Form-B inviting the applications from the eligible persons was issued on 25.02.1984 and got published in the Village on 26.02.1984 and in response to the said notice, 8 persons have applied for assignment and within the expiry of the time limit of B-Notice. The above said persons were assigned the land and they are in possession of the properties and now the assignees are in possession of the properties for more than 30 years and now the petitioner cannot challenge the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.23/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 same. They have put up superstructure and improved the land and also they are enjoying the lands. Since the above said beneficiaries have not been impleaded in this writ petition, the writ petition itself is not maintainable.
25. He would further submit that this Court has ordered to pass fresh order of assignment within 12 weeks and necessary action has been taken by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode. When the action was initiated, it was found that out of 7.30 acres comprised in S.No.56/A2, 56/C1B, 56-B1A, 67/A, 68/1A, 69/1A, 69/A3 and an extent of 1.56 acres was on encroachment by built up houses and fencing was erected and action was taken to assign the remaining portion of the extent of 15.76 acres after adopting due process of law and extent of 5.74 acres were conditionally assigned to 12 eligible persons as listed below in the Form-E, vide proceedings dated 04.04.2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, Erode. He further submitted that the AG & OT of Tamil Nadu of this Court, has sent a letter dated 14.11.2018 to District Collector, Erode and copy of the same was also marked to the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) and the RDO, Gobichettipalayam. Further, the sale was executed for the Trust properties with regard to the Trust is clearly enacted in Section 37-A of the Act. Further, he submitted that the Will dated 27.09.1968 and the paramount intention of the Will was to form educational institutions and maternity hospital in the name of Palaniappa Chettiar and Chinnammal (alias) Rangammal Trust. Since the intention of the Will was to establish the educational institution and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.24/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 maternity hospital, necessary permission might be obtained from the Government on time. The Trust has not obtained any permission for the above purpose.
26. He further submitted that in the Will, it was also stated to form a Committee consisting of the officials maintained to administer the Trust, but no Committee was formed. Hence, their claim is not maintainable and the Will dated 27.09.1968 is null and void and the land holdings of the testator were above 15 standard acres and the Trust was not a registered Trust and hence, the above Will will not come under the purview of the Trust.
27. Learned counsel further submitted that the said G.T.Perumal was appointed as a care-taker as per the Registration document dated 19.12.1980 and he was informed about the action taken by the official concerned. But he is not entitled to get the lands declared as surplus. Further, the land declared as surplus land, is not the Trust property and no Trust was formed by the land owner or her husband and hence, the contention of the petitioner's counsel is not acceptable. It is not the Trust property and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
28. Learned Additional Advocate General further emphasized that the land once declared as surplus land and allotted to the beneficiaries as per the Rules and after 40 years, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.25/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 and he has no locus-standi to file the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
29. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
30. Admittedly, the subject lands originally belonged to one Palaniappa Chettiar and his wife Chellammal alias Rangammal. Originally, he possessed the property of an extent of 96.47 acres including 29 houses in Sathyamangalam Taluk of Gobichettipalayam of various villages. Further, as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5924, 6469 of 2005, etc., dated 09.03.2017, the Will executed by the above said Palanisamy Chettiar and his wife Chellammal are valid and the Will said to have been executed by the said Rangammal in favour of G.K.Perumal has been declared as forged one and it is not valid and that G.K.Perumal is not entitled to any property stated in the said Will. On a reading of the Will, it clearly shows that all the properties belong to the Palanisamy Chettiar and his wife for the charitable purpose and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also upheld that the said Will is a valid document, and therefore, the subsequently directed to form a Trust for administration and also framed scheme for administration and thereafter, the properties will be under the control of the A.G.& O.T. (writ petitioner). Further, though initially proceedings were served on the Rangammal and according to the learned Additional Advocate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.26/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 General, prior to the death of Rangammal in the year 1980, all the acquisition proceedings were completed and also the lands were declared as surplus land, and therefore, the subsequent proceedings are only formalities and therefore, though the alleged Will in favour of G.K.Perumal is declared as not valid Will and it is forged one, but however, based on the said forged Will, they have made a representation before the authorities and the authorities considered and they have passed the order. But however, once the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the Will in favour of G.K.Perumal is the forged one and it is not valid and it will not bind whatever the alienation or encumbrance made by G.K.Perumal in respect of the property of the Palanisamy Chettiar and Rangammal and the same is not valid.
31. Now, the question is as to whether the land declared as surplus land under the Land Reforms Act, is valid or not.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 2 of the Land Reforms Act, and submitted that the Act does not apply to the land held by the existing religious institution or charitable Trust of public nature. He submitted that though both the Palanisamy Chettiar and his wife executed a joint and mutual Will, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also has upheld the said Will stating that the joint Will executed by both the Palanisamy Chettiar and his wife, is only for religious purpose.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.27/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022
33. Further, though the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that all the lands/surplus lands declared by the Authorised Officer had not been covered under the Will, whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that all the properties specifically mentioned in the survey number and the other properties even which are not mentioned in the survey number also, and in short, all the properties belong to both the Palanisamy Chettiar and his wife and the income can be only utilized for the religious purpose even during the life-time, they can maintain and utilise the income only for the religious purpose and after that, the scheme has to be framed and Trustee had to be appointed for administration of the Trust. Therefore, once the property is dedicated for religious purpose and it is a religious Trust, the Land Reforms Act would not get attracted, and therefore, submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the land acquired was declared as 'surplus land' and the land vested with the Government, and therefore, it is the sovereign function and the Government can acquire any land and retain it as a Government land, is not acceptable. As per the Will, it is a religious Trust and the Will was also upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court as valid one and once the property of the said Palanisamy Chettiar and his wife are bequeathed for the religious purpose, Section 2 of the Act, would not be applicable to the land in question. Therefore, when once the Act itself is not applicable, the land declared as surplus land under the Land Ceiling Act is not valid and it is void-ab-initio. Though out of the major land, surplus land had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.28/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 been declared, even as per the counter affidavit and the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General, so far 7.30 acres only were assigned to the beneficiaries mentioned in the counter affidavit. But out of the extent of lands declared as surplus land, so far, they have not been allotted to the landless poor.
34. Therefore, as already stated, the Act is not applicable to the subject lands and it is under the control and administration of the writ petitioner/AG & OT. The land was assigned only for seven persons in total extent of only 7.30 acres and they are in a possession even that also, in the year 2012 only, they have been assigned the land. As stated by the learned Additional Advocate General, it is not assigned 40 years before and they are in possession for 40 years before and even assuming that they are not alloted or assigned to the beneficiaries or the entire surplus land acquired from the said Palanisamy Chettiar and it is Trust property and therefore, the impugned G.O. is declared as null and void and also the surplus land acquired by the Government is not valid and therefore this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to hand over back the lands in question/surrender the so-called surplus land to the writ petitioner/AG & OT.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.29/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022
35. Even though the petitioner has not impleaded the beneficiaries, now the beneficiaries have filed impleading petitions. However, the writ petitioner has stated that since the Will is executed for charitable purpose and it is under the control of the writ petitioner/AG & OT and also it is only for the religious purpose and though the entire land acquired by the Government under the Land Reforms Act has not been utilised or assigned as per the Land Reforms Act, and the Distribution of Surplus Land Rules, and however, the land assigned to the applicants in the impleading petition, can retain their lands.
36. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and since no adverse order is being passed against the petitioners in the impleading petition, the impleading petition in W.M.P.32975 of 2023 is dismissed. The land is to be used only for religious purpose and the Act will not be applicable and therefore, the land declared as surplus under the Land Reforms Act, is not valid and the impugned G.O. is set aside.
37. Accordingly the writ petition stands allowed. However, in respect of the land(s) of an extent of 7.30 acres is concerned, which was already allotted to the beneficiaries, shall not be disturbed and the beneficiaries can retain their respective allotted lands. In respect of the rest of the lands, the respondents are directed to surrender and hand over the possession of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.30/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 lands to the petitioner within the period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner is directed to take over the possession of the rest of the lands and maintain the same fulfilling the object of the Will. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.34964, 34968 and 34959 of 2023 are closed.
22.12.2023
(2/2)
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
nst/cs
To:
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Special Commissioner,
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Cheapuk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Erode Collectorate Building
Erode District – 638 011.
4.The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Erode – 638 001. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.31/32 W.P.No.16776 of 2022 P.VELMURUGAN, J cs W.P.No.16776 of 2022 22.12.2023 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.32/32